SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection: Plant-Incorporated
Protectants; CBI Substantiation and Adverse Effects Reporting

OMB No.: 2070-0142              EPA ICR No.: 1693.08

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the
regulation of pesticides as authorized by the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Prior to EPA granting a
registration, the manufacturer of the pesticide must demonstrate to the
Agency that the use of the pesticide product will not result in any
unreasonable adverse effects to humans or the environment. EPA is also
responsible under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for
establishing a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for pesticide residues on food or feed.

The Agency promulgated a final rule, codified at 40 CFR part 174, that
addresses the regulatory status of pesticidal substances that are
produced by plants (plant-incorporated protectants). A
plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) is defined in the final rule as
“the pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in
a living plant and the genetic material necessary for the production of
such a substance.” The rule (Attachment A) exempts a wide range of
PIPs from registration requirements under FIFRA, and it imposes two
requirements on manufacturers of some PIPs.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) covers the two information
collection related provisions contained in the rule, i.e., the provision
that requires registrants that make Confidential Business Information
(CBI) claims to substantiate such claims when they are made, and the
provision that requires manufacturers of PIPs exempted from requirements
of registration under the final rule to report adverse effects to the
Agency.  The current CBI regulations at 40 CFR part 2 require that
claimants substantiate their CBI claims for their own records when the
claim is made, and subsequently provide the substantiation to EPA only
if requested.  The substantiation, however, is not required to be
included with the submission to EPA in which the CBI claims are made.
The burden associated with the existing requirement for CBI claims
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 is already approved by OMB under OMB Control
No. 2020-0003..

Although 40 CFR part 174 requires the claimant to include the CBI
substantiation in the PIP- related submissions to EPA, it is difficult
to identify any additional burden that such a requirement might actually
impose.  Nevertheless, the Agency has chosen the conservative approach
of including potential burden and costs for preparing and submitting the
CBI substantiation at the time of submission of the information
containing the CBI claim as required by the rule.

The provisions of 40 CFR 174 that are related to information collection
activities which are part of registration activities, e.g., data
requirements for pesticide registrations, are already approved by OMB
under the PRA, and that approval is not impacted by the clarification
provided in the final rule.  Information collection activities related
to pesticide registration are approved under OMB Control Nos. 2070-0060
(Application for New or Amended Pesticide Registration), 2070-0024
(Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/Feed Crops and New Inert
Ingredients), and 2070-0040 (Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for
Pesticides).  This ICR, therefore, discusses the paperwork burdens
associated with the requirement for registrants to substantiate CBI
claims when they are made, and the requirement for manufacturers of PIPs
exempted from registration requirements under the final rule to report
adverse effects to the Agency within 30 days.

2. 	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

	Although FIFRA requires the registration of pesticides, it also
authorizes the Agency’s regulation of unregistered pesticides. FIFRA
section 3(a) provides that, to the extent necessary to prevent
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may
limit the distribution, sale, or use of any pesticide that is not
registered under section 3 of FIFRA, or subject to an experimental use
permit under section 5 of FIFRA, or subject to an emergency exemption
under section 18 of FIFRA. Pesticides that are "not registered" include
pesticides that are exempt from FIFRA requirements under section 25(b)
(Attachment B).

FIFRA section 2(bb) defines the term "unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment" to mean: “(1) any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental
costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary
risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any
food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act” (7 U.S.C. 136(bb)).

Section 25(b)(2) of FIFRA allows EPA to exempt, by regulation, any
pesticide from some or all of the requirements of FIFRA, if the
pesticide is of a character which is unnecessary to be subject to FIFRA
in order to carry out the purposes of that Act (7 U.S.C. 136w(b)(2)).
EPA interprets FIFRA section 25(b)(2) to authorize EPA to exempt a
pesticide or category of pesticides that EPA determines poses a low
probability of risk to the environment, and that is not likely to cause
unreasonable adverse effects to the environment even in the absence of
regulatory oversight under FIFRA.

To determine whether a pesticide qualifies for an exemption under
section 25(b)(2), EPA evaluates both the potential risks and benefits of
the use of the pesticide. In evaluating a pesticide under the first
exemption criterion, whether use of the pesticide poses a low
probability of risk to the environment, EPA considers the extent of the
potential risks caused by use of the pesticide to the environment,
including humans and other animals, plants, water, air and land.
Potential risks to humans include dietary risks as well as non-dietary
risks such as those resulting from occupational or residential exposure
to the pesticide. EPA uses the FFDCA section 408 standard in evaluating
dietary risks. EPA will not exempt pesticides under section 25(b)(2)
that fail the low probability of risk criterion.

In evaluating a pesticide under the second exemption criterion, whether
the use of the pesticide is likely to cause unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment even in the absence of regulatory oversight under
FIFRA, EPA balances all the potential risks to human health, including
any dietary risks, and risks to the remainder of the environment from
use of the pesticide against the potential benefits associated with its
use. In balancing risks and benefits, EPA considers the economic,
social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the
pesticide. If the pesticide meets both exemption criteria, EPA may
exempt the pesticide from regulation under FIFRA section 25(b)(2).

Under FFDCA section 408(a) (Attachment C), a pesticide chemical residue
in or on food is not safe unless EPA has issued either: a tolerance for
the residue and the residue is within the tolerance limits, or an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the residue (21 U.S.C.
346a(a)(1)). FFDCA section 408 authorizes EPA to determine a residue is
safe and exempt from the requirement of a tolerance if the Administrator
“. . . has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information” (21 U.S.C.
346a(c)(2)(A)). Section 408 of the FFDCA also directs EPA to
specifically consider harm that may result to infants and children as a
result of pesticide chemical residues.

 	A determination that a pesticide chemical meets the safety standard of
section 408(a) of the FFDCA may also be relevant to whether a pesticide
qualifies for a FIFRA section 25(b)(2) exemption with respect to human
health risks arising from other routes of exposure. However, FIFRA does
not provide for exemption of a pesticide in food based solely upon
consistency with the FFDCA section 408 exemption standard. At a minimum,
EPA also must evaluate risks arising from occupational exposure to
humans and determine that such risks meet both exemption criteria. In
addition, EPA must evaluate the risks to the environment from the
pesticide and determine both that the pesticide poses only a low
probability of environmental risks, and that use of the pesticide is not
likely to cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the remainder of the
environment in the absence of regulation under FIFRA.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA believes that requiring the substantiation of CBI claims for PIPs at
the time of submission to the Agency will help ensure a timely EPA
response to submissions for PIPs, protect the public’s right to access
information consistent with FIFRA, and ensure that information
qualifying as CBI is properly protected from unauthorized disclosures.
Since registrants are already required to ensure that CBI claims are
proper prior to asserting the CBI protection for information submitted
to EPA, this requirement simply affects the time at which the
substantiation is submitted to the Agency, i.e., it requires the
inclusion of this substantiation with the submission.

The Agency’s analysis of the potential risks and benefits of PIPs has
led it to conclude that the categories of PIPs described in 40 CFR part
174, subpart B warrant exemption.  However, it is possible that there
may be unforeseeable adverse effects to human health or the environment
from the testing and use of otherwise exempted PIPs, as the exemptions
at subpart B are broad and cover literally thousands of potential
substances, some of which under certain use conditions have the
potential to be toxic. The Agency therefore included, as a condition of
exemption, a requirement to report to EPA within 30 days any factual
adverse effects associated with these otherwise exempt PIPs. These
reporting requirements are similar to reporting requirements imposed on
registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2) for registered pesticides.
However, since the 6(a)(2) reporting requirement applies to registered
pesticides and many PIPs are exempted from registration requirements,
the separate reporting requirement is necessary in order to obtain any
information on unforeseen adverse effects from the exempted PIPs.

The information supplied to substantiate claims of confidentiality will
be used by the Agency to determine whether CBI claims comply with the
confidentiality provisions of FIFRA. Early substantiation of CBI claims
will enable the Agency to promptly release information supporting PIPs
registration decisions, without delaying registrations in order to
obtain CBI substantiation once a decision has been made to register a
PIP, while still protecting legitimate CBI.

The adverse effects reports on exempted PIPs will be utilized by the
Agency to evaluate adverse effects to determine if any additional
regulatory actions are warranted. These reports will also enable the
Agency to report to appropriate oversight bodies and the public its
evaluation of such adverse effects and will help support any additional
decision on regulatory oversight.

3. 	NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION  CRITERIA

   3(a)  Non duplication

In fulfilling its mission as the Federal agency primarily responsible
for the regulation of pesticides, EPA works closely with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) which has responsibilities under the
Federal Plant Protection Act (FPPA), and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) which has responsibilities under the FFDCA. EPA,
USDA and FDA consult and exchange information when such consultation is
helpful in resolving safety questions. The three agencies also strive
for consistency between programs, adopting consistent approaches, to the
extent permitted by the respective statutory authorities. A consistent
approach between agencies is easier for the regulated community to
understand. It is also more likely to conserve resources, as submitters
would more likely be able to use data developed for one agency to meet
requirements posed by another agency for the same or similar products.

Generally, respondents are not required to submit applications or any
other related data or information regarding testing to any other federal
agency or to any other EPA program office. However, there may be
requirements under the FPPA for plants that produce PIPs. Under the
FPPA, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
regulates field testing of genetically altered plants, while EPA will
have regulatory oversight of the pesticide substances produced by those
plants. In instances where review under the FPPA may be triggered, the
respondent will need to contact APHIS for a determination of whether the
plant containing a PIP is a plant pest that will need a permit.  In
addition, registrants may be required to obtain an EUP for PIPs-related
field trials.  In such cases, registrants would be expected to comply
with the applicable EUP requirements.  As described in section 1(b) of
this supporting statement, the paperwork activities associated with EUPs
are addressed in a separate ICR.  In any case, there is no known
duplication related to the requirements covered in this ICR, i.e., the
up-front CBI substantiation or the submission of adverse effects reports
for exempted PIPs. Each respondent must submit information unique to
his/her product application, or allegation received, and will do so only
once on occasion.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	In proposing to renew this ICR, EPA will publish a Federal Register
Notice and provide a 60-day public notice and comment period.

3(c)  Consultations

	In addition to the public notice that EPA will publish in the Federal
Register concerning the renewal of this ICR, the Agency will consult, as
required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), with stakeholders who actively
interact with the Agency through the use of this collection instrument.

A record of the consultations will be made available in the public
docket online at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , referencing Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OPP–2013-0494.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Not applicable. The information is submitted either in conjunction with
the application or when an adverse effect occurs for an exempted PIP.
This activity is conducted only once per "event," and therefore, there
are no available means by which the Agency can reduce the frequency.

3(e)  General Guidelines

The collection activities covered by this ICR comply with the guidelines
provided under the PRA and the implementing regulations issued by OMB.

In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii)(E), federal agencies are
required to indicate whether the proposed 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 an
explanation of the decision. At this time of this renewal, OPP is not
offering a fully electronic submission option. The Agency is actively
working to extend full electronic submission options in keeping with the
recent Executive Order on "Reducing Reporting and Paperwork Burdens" and
other related policy and guidance.  In the future, the Agency hopes to
be able to offer a fully electronic submission option. The Agency is,
however, beginning the process of defining requirements for electronic
submission of studies as well as other elements of applications and
petitions.  This includes efforts to develop information technology
approaches to adequately protect FIFRA Confidential Business Information
submitted over the Internet.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Although the EPA urges submitters to minimize the amount of information
that is claimed as CBI, any data and/or information submitted to the
Agency may be claimed as trade secret, or commercial or financial
information and will be protected from disclosure by the EPA under FIFRA
section 10 and the associated regulations as contained in 40 CFR Part 2,
Subpart B. When information that is claimed as trade secret or CBI is
provided to the Agency, such information is subject to the protections
and procedures set forth in FIFRA Section 10. Nothing in this rule
affects those protections.

Even if a registrant fails to include the required substantiation for
any CBI claims made in the PIP application when that application is
submitted to EPA, the Agency intends to still handle such claims in
accordance with the FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security
Manual. This manual contains instructions relative to all contact with
confidential documents, including responsibility of EPA employees,
physical security measures, CBI materials within EPA, CBI typing
procedures (documents typed internally or by contract), and
interdivisional routing procedures. The manual dictates all CBI must be
marked or flagged as such, that it must be kept in secure, i.e.,
double-locked areas, and that all CBI to be destroyed must be cleared by
a document control officer and placed in EPA's paper shredder.

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

Not applicable. No information of a sensitive or private nature is
requested in conjunction with this collection activity. Further, this
information collection activity complies with the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB circular A-108.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)  Respondents/NAICS Codes

The respondents for the information collection activities contained in
this ICR include producers and importers of PIPs. These entities may be
classified under the following North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes:

32532	Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

54171	Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences

325414	Biological Products (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing

611310	Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools

422910	Farm Supplies Wholesalers

422930	Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists’ Supplies (Wholesalers)

4(b)  Information Requested

4(b)(i)  Data items, including record keeping requirements

Registrants must continue to review the regulations regarding CBI,
review the materials in their submission for which claims are being
made; and ensure that CBI claims are properly made. Pursuant to 40 CFR
174, registrants must submit substantiation for any CBI claim made for
information for PIPs submitted to EPA. The Agency is not imposing any
new requirements regarding the basis for making a CBI claim, or the
points that must be addressed to substantiate any CBI claim that is
made. These requirements already exist in 40 CFR part 2. In addition,
EPA is not imposing any specific form or format for these
substantiations. (See 40 CFR 174.9)

Manufacturers of PIPs exempted from registration requirements must
submit to EPA any information they subsequently obtain regarding adverse
effects on human health or the environment alleged to have been caused
by the exempted PIP. The Agency anticipates that the entities will
obtain adverse effects information during the normal course of business,
and then will make a report to the Agency with adequate background
information for the Agency to be able to make a decision to either ask
for additional information or to act on the information presented. The
Agency does not foresee any extra data collection effort to find adverse
effects beyond the normal course of business but rather envisions these
effects being discovered from ongoing studies of various PIPs or
customer complaints. Although EPA specifies the content of any adverse
effects report submitted to EPA, EPA is not imposing any specific form
or format for these reports. (See 40 CFR 174.71)

In addition, entities may also be asked to respond to Agency questions
that arise based on the submission, whether it be the CBI
substantiation, or the adverse effects report. Such follow-up activities
are assumed as part of the initial burden estimates. Should further
information be necessary, e.g., should the adverse effect information
reported to EPA indicate the need for a study or other additional
information, any additional Agency requirement would come in the form of
a data call-in covered under the existing regulations and a separate ICR
approved by OMB under Control No. 2070-0057, EPA ICR No. 922. This ICR
is not intended to address such activities.

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

The requirements for up-front CBI substantiation and adverse effects
reporting are separate requirements that only occur on occasion. The CBI
substantiation occurs when an entity is submitting PIP related
information to EPA that contains CBI claims pursuant to 40 CFR part 2.
The adverse effects reporting occurs when an entity obtains information
regarding adverse effects on human health or the environment alleged to
have been caused by the exempted PIP.

Although each activity is distinct, a typical respondent for each
activity is expected to engage in the following activities:

Activity 	Explanation

Read Regulations	The respondent needs to become familiar with the
regulations governing CBI substantiation or adverse effects reporting as
they pertain to PIPs.

Plan Activities	The respondent must develop/amend and implement a plan
to ensure compliance with these requirements. The registrant is also
encouraged to consult with the Agency.

Gather Information	The information necessary to provide the required
substantiation or any information obtained on adverse effects must be
assembled.

Review Information	The respondent must check the CBI substantiation for
accuracy and completeness, or verify that the adverse effects report
accurately reflects the information they have obtained.

Complete Paperwork	The information must be compiled into a document(s)
or report(s) and prepared for submission to EPA.

Submit Information	The respondent must submit the information to OPP as
required.

Store, Maintain, and File

Information	This information collections does not contain any
recordkeeping requirements. Please note however that FIFRA section 8,
and the related regulations in 40 CFR part 169, require registrants to
store and maintain certain information related to their pesticide
products.

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION

METHODOLOGIES, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a)  Agency Activities

The Agency must evaluate the CBI substantiations when submitted, and
process any adverse effect reports for exempted PIPs when received.
Although these activities are distinct and separate, the Agency is
expected to engage in the following activities:

Activity	Explanation

Consult with the registrant	The Agency will respond to any questions
either in writing, or verbally via meetings or by telephone, and provide
any other assistance or guidance requested.

Record submissions	Whether the submission involves an application
package for the registration of a PIP, or an adverse effects report for
allegations related to an exempted PIP, the submission is recorded or
logged in by the Agency to document its receipt. The Agency will create
an electronic record of the necessary information for routing and
tracking purposes.

Review submissions	The Agency will review the incoming materials with
CBI claims to evaluate the CBI substantiations for completeness and
appropriateness, and will review the incoming adverse effects reports to
determine what, if any, substantive review or action might be necessary
as follow-up to the alleged adverse effects.

Store the information	The Agency will maintain the information contained
in the submitted application package, including the CBI substantiation
that was submitted, and will maintain any adverse effects report(s)
submitted.

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Respondents to this ICR providing substantiation of CBI claims at the
time the claims are made must necessarily submit the information as part
of their larger package for registration of a pesticide product, since
components of that package that are claimed as CBI. Components of
registration packages with CBI claims are currently submitted by mail.
EPA is working to allow electronic submission of registration packages,
include efforts to develop information technology approaches to
adequately protect FIFRA Confidential Business Information submitted
over the Internet.

All information received by the Agency pertaining to CBI substantiation
or adverse effects for exempted PIPs will be routed to BPPD in OPP.  It
will be pin-punched by date, screened, and entered into the Office of
Pesticide Programs Information Network (OPPIN).

For registration packages involving PIPs, a file will be created and the
application package will be forwarded to the appropriate Manager within
BPPD. The Manager assures that the initial OPPIN entry is correct,
reviews the information, and if necessary, routes the submitted data
through scientific and/or administrative review. If the scientific
information indicates that the submission is deficient in any manner,
the submitter has the option of attempting to correct the deficiency. If
the submission indicates that information claimed as CBI warrants said
claim, the applicant is notified and the information is marked as such.
The Agency will continue current practice of treating information
claimed as CBI as such, until a CBI determination is made. If a
determination is made that a CBI claim is not warranted or the claim is
not substantiated, the registrant will be notified that the information
claimed as CBI, does not qualify as CBI because it does not meet the
regulatory requirements. They will be given an opportunity to respond as
provided in the existing regulations. The package will then be processed
accordingly.

For adverse effects reports related to exempted PIPs, a file will be
created and the report will be forwarded to the appropriate product
Manager within BPPD. The Manager assures that the initial OPPIN entry is
correct, reviews the information, and determines the appropriate review
and next steps based on the contents of the report, routing the report
through scientific and/or administrative review, as appropriate. If an
adverse effect report indicates that additional action is warranted or
necessary, the Agency will take appropriate action.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

In promulgating the requirements codified at 40 CFR 174, the Agency
considered potential small entity impacts, and has taken steps to
minimize potential impacts to the extent permitted. EPA believes that
the CBI substantiation is fairly easy to provide for information which
warrants CBI claims. The entity, regardless of size, is already required
to make the CBI determination prior to submitting its registration
application to EPA. The rule simply requires that the information be
provided with the submission to substantiate the CBI claim. This is
reflected in the relatively low cost estimate for CBI substantiation for
a PIP submission. This relatively small cost represents a reasonable
step to ensure the public has access to all non-confidential information
on PIPs once they are registered.

In addition, the Agency has taken steps to ensure that only the person
who produces the exempted PIP for sale and distribution is responsible
for adverse effects reporting, and only if they obtain the adverse
effects information. The Agency has designed such reporting to be
minimal and has placed the burden on the Agency to take additional
action beyond the entity making the report.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The CBI substantiation occurs only upon submission of claims of
confidentiality and the adverse effects reporting only occurs on
occasion. There is no collection schedule per se associated with these
collection activities. These activities are conducted once per
submission.

6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)  Estimating per Respondent Burden and Cost

Burdens for this analysis consist primarily of the administrative burden
associated with the drafting and submission of the CBI substantiation
and the adverse effects reports. The burden estimates are based on the
Agency’s experience regarding existing burden estimates related to CBI
substantiation and adverse effects reporting for conventional
pesticides, and provide reasonable estimates for the average time
necessary to perform each activity for each submission.

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

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

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

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

	Loaded Wage Rate: Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 44%
of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm
workers, from   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm"
 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm . However, if other
sectors are listed for which 44% is not applicable; the applicable
percentage will be stated.

	Fully Loaded Wage Rate: We multiply the loaded wage rate by 50% (EPA
guidelines 20-70%) to get overhead costs.  Attachment E contains
worksheets providing the breakout of these costs.  Costs are indexed to
2012 data.

To derive the labor rates for this ICR, Agency economists estimated the
wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories using
the methodology described in Attachment E.  The respondent costs for
this renewal for managerial, technical and clerical rates are estimated
at $117.74, $62.58, and $37.33 per hour, respectively.  These labor
rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.

Since CBI substantiations are simply added to the registration
application package and are not submitted separately, there are no
additional costs related to the transmittal of this information to the
Agency. The costs for submitting the registration application package
are already included under the existing ICRs.  These respondent burden
and cost estimates may also represent an upper bound because the
analysis assumes that all PIP-related registration applications may
include information that the registrants will claim as CBI which will
need to be substantiated. It is likely that registrants will recognize,
over time, that it is in their interest to make all information on PIPs
publicly available to improve the transparency of the regulatory
process.

For purposes of this ICR, EPA is assuming that no more than 60
PIP-related registration applications with associated CBI
substantiations will be submitted over the three-year approval period
for this ICR, or 20 per year.  This estimate is based on EPA’s recent
experience with PIP registration actions.  Over the last two years there
has been an average of 2 tolerance exemptions finalized, and two EUP
applications.  There has been an average of 13 applications for new PIP
products, but this number has been trending up. Thus, instead of using
the average for this ICR, the calculate uses the maximum, which was 16
applications in 2012.

Table 1 – Average Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission
for Substantiation of CBI Claims Made in a Plant-Incorporated Protectant
Registration Application

	Burden and Cost Estimates	Totals

Activities	Mgmt.

($117.74/hr)	Tech.

($62.58/hr)	Clerical

($37.33/hr)	Burden

(hrs)	Costs

($)

Read Regulations	1	2	0	3	 242.90

Plan Activities	2 	4	0	6	 485.80

Gather Information	0	4	0	4	 250.32

Review Information	2 	1	1	4	 335.39

Complete Paperwork	0	1	2	3	 137.24

Submit Information	0.5	0.5	0.5	1.5	 108.83

Totals	5.5	12.5	3.5	21.5	1,560.48

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden: 20 events x 21.5 hours = 430
hours

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: 20 events x $1,560.48 = $31,210

Although the Agency does not anticipate any adverse effect reports to be
submitted for exempted PIPs, this ICR includes an estimate of one such
report being submitted over the three-year approval period for this ICR.
The per-submission estimate is therefore divided by 3 to provide an
average annual burden and cost to include in the total annual estimates
for this ICR. The total annual average burden and costs for the adverse
effects report is calculated as follows:

Table 2 - Average Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission
for Submitting an Adverse Effects Report for an Exempt
Plant-Incorporated Protectant

	Burden and Cost Estimates	Totals

Activities	Mgmt.

($117.74/hr)	Tech.

($62.58/hr)	Clerical

($37.33/hr)	Burden (hrs)	Costs

($)

Read Regulations	0.5	1	0	1.5	 121.45

Plan Activities 	0.5	0.5	0	1	 90.16

Gather Information	0	1 	0	1	 62.58

Review Information	0.5 	0.5	0	1	 90.16

Complete Paperwork	0	0.5	1 	1.5	 68.62

Submit Information 	0	0.5 	0.5	1.0	 49.96

Cost for Mailing 	0	0	0	0	 0.44

Totals	1.5	4 	1.5	7	 483.37

Assuming a single adverse effects report submitted over three year
period:

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden: (1 event x 7 hours) ÷ 3 = 2.3
hours

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: (1 event x $483.37) ÷ 3 = $161

6(b)  Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Table 3 – Total Annual Respondent Burden/Cost

	Per Submission Estimates	Total Submissions

Expected each year	Totals

	Burden (hrs)	Costs($)

Burden (hrs)	Costs ($)

CBI Substantiation	21.5	1,560	20	430	31,210

Adverse Effects Reporting	7	483	1/3	2.3	161

Totals

432.3	31,371

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

The Agency will incur burden and costs while performing the various
activities necessary to review CBI substantiation submissions and any
adverse effects reports submitted for exempted plant-incorporated
protectants. These activities are described in Section 5 of this ICR and
may include the tracking and review of submissions, requests for
additional information, or consultations with applicants.  Tables 4 and
5 provide the average EPA burden and cost estimates for performing these
activities.

Table 4 - Average Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for
EPA Activities related to CBI Substantiation

	Burden Hours	Total

Activities	Mgmt.

($120.60/hr)	Tech.

($78.24/hr)	Clerical

($44.61/hr)	Burden (hrs)	Costs

($)

Consult With Registrant 	1	3	0.5	4.5	 377.63

Record Submissions	0	0.5	1	1.5	 83.73

Review Submissions	1	2	0	3	 277.08

Store the Information	0	0.5	1	1.5	 83.73

Totals	2	6	2.5	10.5	 822.18

Estimated Total Annual Agency Burden: 20 events x 10.5 hours = 210 hours

Estimated Total Annual Agency Cost: 20 events x $822.18 = $16,444

Table 5 – Average Agency Burden and Cost Estimates per Submission for
EPA Activities related to an Adverse Effects Report Submitted for an
Exempt Plant-Incorporated Protectant

Activities	Burden Hours	Totals

	Mgmt.

($120.60/hr)	Tech.

($78.24/hr)	Clerical

($44.61/hr)	Burden

(hrs)	Costs

($)

Consult With Registrant 	0.5	1	0.5	2	$160.85

Record Submissions	0	0.5	1	1.5	 $83.73

Review Submissions	1	1	0	2	$198.84

Store the Information	0	0.5	0.5	1	 $61.43

Totals	1.5	3	2	6.5	$504.85

 	Assuming a single adverse effects report might be submitted over the 3
year approval period for the ICR, the total annual average burden and
costs for EPA activities related to the adverse effects report is
calculated as follows:

Estimated Total Annual Agency Burden: (1 event x 6.5 hours) ÷ 3 = 2.2
hours

Estimated Total Annual Agency Cost: (1 event x $504.85) ÷ 3 = $168

In addition, the Agency may determine that additional follow-up action
is necessary for either type of submission and will be providing
necessary guidance for these requirements.

Table 6 – Total Annual Agency Burden/Cost

	Per Submission Estimates	Total Submissions

Expected each year	Totals

	Burden

(hrs)	Costs

($)

Burden

(hrs)	Costs

($)

CBI Substantiation	10.5	822	20	210	16,444

Adverse Effects Reporting	6.5	504	1/3	2.2	168

Totals

191	16,612

6(d)  Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table

The following table presents the total estimated annual burden and costs
for this ICR:

Table 7 – Total Annual Respondent and Agency Burden and Cost Estimates

	Respondent	Agency

Activities	Burden (hrs) 	Costs ($)	Burden (hrs) 	Costs ($)

CBI Substantiations	 430 	 31,210 	 210 	 16,444

Adverse Effects Reports	 2 	 161 	 2 	 168

Totals	 432 	 31,371 	 212 	 16,612

Columns and Rows may not add due to rounding

6(e)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The expected number of responses requiring CBI substantiation has
increased from 18 in the last ICR approval to 20 for this ICR renewal.
The number of adverse effect reporting submissions remains the same.
The increase in the expected number of responses is primarily driven by
an expected increase in the number of applications for registration
requiring CBI substantiation.

	The total burden hours per response has not changed for this ICR
renewal. However, because of the increase in CBI substantiations, the
total annual burden estimate for registrants has increased from 389 to
432 hours. The annual costs for registrants have also increased from
$26,875 to $31,371. The increase in CBI substantiations is the primary
reason for the increase in costs. The estimated burden increase
represents an adjustment.

6(f)  Burden Statement

The total annual “respondent” (applicant) burden for the collection
of information in this renewal is estimated to be 432 hours. The annual
respondent burden for the collection of information associated with the
substantiation at the time of submission for CBI claims related to a PIP
registration application is estimated to average 21.5 hours per
submission, and the annual respondent burden for the collection of
information associated with the reporting of adverse effects for
exempted PIPs is estimated to average 7 hours per submission.

“Burden” is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The Agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information subject to the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. OMB control numbers for certain regulations in Title 40,
after initial display in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part
9 and may appear on the information collection instrument as applicable,
i.e., form or instructions, and in the Federal Register.

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the EPA Docket Center-Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, in Rm. S-3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays.  The docket telephone number is
(202) 566-1744.  You may submit comments regarding 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.

Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or by mail addressed to Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494 and OMB control number 2070-0142 in any
correspondence.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public
docket established for this ICR under docket identification number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494.  These attachments are available for online
viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in
section 6(f) of the supporting statement.

Attachment A:	40 CFR part 174 - Procedures And Requirements For Plant-
Incorporated Protectants. Available online at the National Archives and
Records Administration’s  HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=73df279ae16b89
53054fc6a0436550e5;rgn=div5;view=text;node=40%3A<IP_ADDRESS>.24;idno=40;cc=e
cfr" Electronic CFR Webpage

Attachment B	7 USC 136w(b) - FIFRA Section 25(b). Available online at
the US House of Representatives’ Office of the Law Revision
Counsel’s   HYPERLINK
"http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t05t08+20
31+7++%287%20USC%20136w%28b%29%20%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20"  US
Code website

Attachment C:	7 USC 346a(a) - FFDCA Section 408(a).  Available online at
the US House of Representatives’ Office of the Law Revision
Counsel’s   HYPERLINK
"http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+14
9+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2821%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%
20w%2F10%20%28346a%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20"  US Code
website

Attachment D:	Reserved for Record of Consultations

Attachment E:	Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Industry,
State and EPA Labor Costs

Attachment F:	Reserved for Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0142

Attachment E

Work Sheets used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494 and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS:  325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$54.34 	$28.88 	$17.23

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

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$24.15 	$12.84 	$7.66

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$78.49 	$41.72 	$24.89

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

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$39.25 	$20.86 	$12.44

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$117.74 	$62.58 	$37.33

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm      May 2012 data

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

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

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

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support
Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

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

Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0494 and is part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999100

Federal Executive Branch

Labor Category:	Formula	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Unloaded Hourly Rate1	 = W	$55.66 	$36.11 	$20.59

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

Benefits per hour	B = W*Lb	$24.74 	$16.05 	$9.15

Loaded Hourly Rate	Wb = W + B = W(1+Lb)	$80.40 	$52.16 	$29.74

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

Overhead per hour	OH = Wb*Lo	$40.20 	$26.08 	$14.87

Fully Loaded Hourly Rate	Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH  	$120.60 	$78.24 	$44.61

1.  Data Source:  BLS   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm      May 2012 data

     NAICS  999100 -  Federal Executive Branch

     Standard Occupational Codes:

       Management:   11-0000, Management Occupations

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

       Clerical:           43-0000, Office and Administrative Support
Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour.

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

August 16, 2013

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  19


1 The specific technology is simple direct duct injection dry scrubbing. EPA Floor option regulatory scenarios ( i. e., Floor Option 1, Floor Option 2, and Floor Option 3) would not require dry scrubbers and would therefore incur no benefits associated with SO2 reductions.

1 Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Replacement Standards: Proposed Rule Assessment of Benefits Associated with the Beyond the Floor Standard for TCl from Solid Fuel Boilers Burning Hazardous Waste We have identified expected reductions in sulfur dioxide ( SO 2) emissions from coal fired boilers as a result of the Hazardous Waste Combustion ( HWC) MACT replacement standards. The HWC MACT standard for chlorine under the " Agency Preferred Approach" regulatory scenario will require facilities with coal fired ( i. e., solid fuel) hazardous waste burning boilers to install flue gas desulfurization ( i. e., " dry scrubber") technology. 1 In addition to controlling releases of chlorine, dry scrubbers will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide from these facilities.

This Assessment examines anticipated benefits associated with SO 2 emissions reductions under the HWC MACT replacement standards, Agency preferred approach. To develop a range of potential benefits estimates of SO 2 reductions, we adjusted published national estimates of SO 2 control benefits to reflect our estimate of the total SO 2 emissions ( tons/ year) avoided in response to the beyond the floor ( BTF) standard for chlorine in solid fuel boilers. We first provide two estimates of benefits based on extrapolation from available literature. We then incorporate a number of very conservative assumptions to provide a " lower bound" estimate of benefits. Finally, we discuss the primary limitations associated with our analysis.

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reductions Four facilities in the HWC MACT regulated universe have solid fuel boilers. These facilities are: 1) Eastman Chemical Company in Tennessee ( seven boilers), 2) Union Carbide in West Virginia ( one boiler), 3) Celanese Chemicals in Texas ( two boilers), and, 4) Eastman Chemical Company facility in Arkansas ( two boilers). None of the boilers at these facilities are currently equipped with dry scrubbers.

We estimate baseline ( SO 2) emissions from these facilities at 37,000 tons per year, 2 U. S. EPA, 2003, Technical Addendum: Methodologies for the Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Act of 2003, accessed February 17, 2004, at < http:// www. epa. gov/ clearskies/ tech_ addendum. pdf>; U. S. EPA, 2003, Technical Support Document for the Clear Skies Act 2003 Air Quality Modeling Analysis, accessed February 17, 2002, at < http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ clearskies/ aq_ modeling_ tsd_ csa2003. pdf>; U. S. EPA, Benefits of the Proposed Inter State Air Quality Rule, accessed February 17, 2004, at < http:// www. epa. gov/ interstateairquality/ tsd0175. pdf>. In addition,

2 reflecting operating requirements under test conditions. The Texas and Arkansas facilities are assumed to use low sulfur coal ( sulfur content of 0.6 percent), and the West Virginia and Tennessee facilities are believed to use eastern coal ( sulfur content ranging from one to five percent, with an average value of 2.5 percent).

Our engineers have determined that the installation of dry scrubbers for required control of HCl ( beyond the floor standard of the agency preferred approach) will reduce SO 2 emissions by 60 percent, or 22,000 tons per year. Exhibit 1 summarizes the SO 2 emissions reductions.

Exhibit 1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS Associated with the AGENCY PREFERRED APPROACH Beyond the Floor Standard for TCl  Solid Fuel Boilers Facility Sulfur Content of Coal Baseline SO2 Emissions SO2 Emission Reductions SO2 Emissions Under Agency Preferred Approach Eastman Chemical Co., Kingsport, Tennessee 2.5% 26,130 15,680 10,450 Celanese Chemicals, Pampa, Texas 0.6% 6,280 3,770 2,510 Union Carbide, South Charleston, West Virginia 2.5% 4,000 2,400 1,600 Eastman Chemical Co., Batesville, Arkansas 0.6% 550 330 220 TOTAL 36,960 22,180 14,780 Evaluation of Benefits To develop initial estimates of potential benefits associated with SO 2 emissions reductions, we scale existing published national benefits assessments associated with SO 2 emissions reductions under the Clear Skies Initiative and the Inter State Air Quality Rule ( IAQR). 2 As we examined an unpublished draft report by Carrothers et al. ( 2002), which estimates national exposure to PM 2.5 and gaseous precursors from coal fired power plants and mobile sources. The report then estimates benefits associated with reduced mortality due to decreases in emissions. Carrothers, Timothy J., Scott K. Wolff, Jouni Tuomisto, Andrew M. Wilson, Jonathan I. Levy, John D. Graham, John D. Graham, John S. Evans, 2002, Assessing the Economic Value of Further Research about Fine Particle Air Pollution: Model Framework and Preliminary Findings, final review draft.

3 Note that this is a conservative assumption because in general, SO2 is a more efficient precursor of particulate matter than nitrous oxides.

4 These estimates reflect the average of a range of discount rates and scenarios. Low end estimates reflect IAQR study near term benefits using a seven percent discount rate; High end estimates reflect Clear Skies study longer term benefits using a three percent discount rate. The estimates also exclude ozone related benefits; IAQR study estimated total benefits ( including ozone related benefits) at $ 54 to $ 84 billion; the Clear Skies study estimated total benefits ( including ozone related 3 detailed in these documents and other literature, a significant percentage of the benefits associated with the control of SO 2 results from avoided health effects associated with the development of fine particulate matter ( PM) formed by SO 2 in the atmosphere. The Clear Skies Initiative and the IAQR both examine benefits associated with reduction in PM resulting from both SO 2 and nitrogen ( NOx) releases.

Our preliminary benefit estimate assumes a linear relationship between quantity of sulfur dioxide controlled and monetary benefits. In addition, we assume:

The facilities in the HWC MACT universe are similar to the national average addressed in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses in terms of affected populations and avoided health impacts.

The relationship between benefits and quantity of SO 2 emissions reduced is linear even at relatively small quantities ( i. e., 22,000 tons).

Where benefits related to particulate matter associated with SO 2 emissions reductions and NOx reductions are not reported separately, the relationship between benefits is proportional to the quantity of pollutants ( i. e., if SO 2 emissions represent 50 percent of the per weight pollutant reductions, then they represent 50 percent of the benefits). 3 The Clear Skies and IAQR analyses each predicted a total reduction in SO 2 emissions of roughly 3.5 million tons and NOx reductions of 1.5 million tons. The total benefits associated with particulate matter reductions were estimated at $ 51.5 to $ 109.3 billion ( 1999 dollars) in the Clear Skies analysis and $ 54.5 to $ 83.6 billion ( 1999 dollars) in the IAQR analysis. 4 benefits) at $ 52 to $ 113 billion.

5 The Clear Skies and IAQR total predictions ( SO2 plus NOx) of approximately 5.0 million tons/ yr emissions reductions ( 3.5/ 5.0 = 70 percent).

4 Assuming that SO 2 emissions reductions represent roughly 70 percent5 of total particulate matter benefits, we estimate that a reduction of 22,000 tons of SO 2 emissions under the HWC MACT standards would incur total monetized benefits ranging from $ 212 million to $ 350 million per year. This result reflects a " dollar per ton" range of $ 9,700 to $ 15,900 for benefits per ton of SO 2 removed. If only mortality is included, annual monetized benefits would range from $ 193 million to $ 320 million, reflecting a " dollar per ton" range of approximately $ 8,800 to 14,600 for benefits per ton of SO 2 removed.

Exhibit 2 provides a more detailed summary of the range of potential benefits based on both studies. 5 Exhibit 2 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS Benefit Category IAQR Analysis ( million 1999$) Clear Skies Analysis ( million 1999$)

Total Mortality 50,000  72,000 47,000  100,000 Total Infant Mortality Benefits 130  180   Total Other Benefits 4,902  5,019 4,518  9,184 Total Benefits 54,532  83,599 51,518  109,284 Total SO2 Benefits 39,911  57,812a 34,478  73,255b Total Benefits of HWC MACT SO2 Reductions: Agency Preferred Approach ( based on 22,000 tons/ yr) c Total Benefits ( millions) $ 247.4  $ 332.9 $ 212.4  $ 350.0 Average of Total Benefits ( millions) $ 281.7 $ 281.9 Total Benefits, per Ton ( dollars) $ 10,642  $ 15,133 $ 9,655  $ 15,908 Average of Total Benefits, per Ton ( dollars) $ 12,808 $ 12,814 Mortality Benefits Only ( millions) $ 215.2  $ 307.4 $ 193.8  $ 320.3 Average of Mortality Benefits Only ( millions) $ 259.5 $ 257.7 Mortality Benefits Only, per Ton ( dollars) $ 9,783  $ 13,971 $ 8,808  $ 14,557 Average of Mortality Benefits Only, per Ton ( dollars) $ 11,797 $ 11,714 Notes: a Based on 3.7  3.8 million tons SO2 avoided, adjusted to exclude 28 31% NOx contribution. b Based on 3.6  4.6 million tons SO2 avoided, adjusted to exclude 33% NOx contribution. c These ranges reflect the use of different discount rates, time frames, and assumptions about non mortality benefits. Low end estimates reflect near term mortality benefits only, using a seven percent discount rate; highend estimates reflect longer term total benefits using a three percent discount rate. 6 Note that this assumption is very conservative and is designed solely to develop a lower bound estimate. Because boilers are designed to provide power for other facility processes, it would be unusual for them to operate at levels as low as 50 percent. In addition, trial burn data ( collected as part of the RCRA permitting process) were used to identify total coal requirements for boilers. Trial burns are typically designed to reflect maximum hazardous waste combustion. Because SO2 is associated with the supplemental fuel coal ( and not with hazardous waste), it is possible that trial burn data may understate baseline SO2 emissions if normal operations involve less hazardous waste and more coal.

6 Lower Bound Estimate of Benefits In addition to the estimates based on a simple extrapolation of Clear Skies and IAQR analyses, we have developed a conservative lower bound estimate of potential benefits ( mortality only) associated with SO 2 emissions reductions resulting from the BTF TCl level for solid fuel boilers. This estimate includes only emissions reductions from the Tennessee Eastman facility and makes the following conservative assumptions:

The facility uses only coal with a low sulfur content of one percent ( initial estimate is based on sulfur content of 2.5 percent);

The facility operates boilers at 50 percent of the intensity reflected in the trial burn data ( initial estimate assumes that boilers operate as continuous process equipment at 90 percent of annual trial burn capacity); and 6

The low end benefit estimate of $ 8,808 per ton of SO 2 eliminated accurately reflects regional benefits in northeastern Tennessee.

The resulting reductions in SO 2 emissions from the facility are therefore 3,100 tons per year rather than 15,680 tons per year. Under these lower bound assumptions, we estimate annual benefits of roughly $ 27 million associated with SO 2 emission reductions. This reflects only the Eastman Tennessee facility and does not consider any benefits associated with the remaining three facilities with coal fired hazardous waste boilers.

Key Limitations:

This assessment incorporates various key assumptions and limitations. These include:

the affected populations for each of the facilities of concern are assumed to be generally consistent with populations affected by facilities examined in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses, 7

the boiler operation and stack heights of the facilities of concern are generally representative of the boilers and stack heights at the facilities examined in the Clear Skies and IAQR analyses,

the linear extrapolation of national level SO 2 reduction benefits is reasonable for quantities of roughly 20,000 tons; and

baseline emissions estimates used in this analysis reflect current emissions for each of the facilities of concern.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27830-27834]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10827]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2014-0251, FRL-9910-63-Region 2]

Rescission of Determination of Attainment and Call for Attainment
Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the NY-NJ-CT 1997 Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
rescind its previously issued determination of attainment (Clean Data
Determination) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the New York-N.
New Jersey-Long Island, (NY-NJ-CT) ozone nonattainment area because
recent complete, quality-assured monitoring data show that the area has
subsequently violated the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). In addition, EPA is proposing to call for
revisions to the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the States of
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. If finalized, this SIP call will
require each of these States to submit a revised attainment SIP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for its portion of the NY-NJ-CT moderate
nonattainment area within 18 months of final action on this SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2014-0251, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2014-0251. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
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.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning EPA's
proposed action related to New Jersey or New York, please contact Kirk
J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10008-1866, telephone number (212)
637-3381<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions concerning EPA's proposed action related to
Connecticut, please contact Richard Burkhart, Air Quality Planning
Unit, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-02, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What actions is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
III. Current Monitoring Data
IV. Why is EPA proposing SIP calls to the States in the NY-NJ-CT
Area?
V. How should the States respond to a final SIP call?
VI. What happens if any of the States (New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut) do not submit a SIP responding to the SIP calls?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to determine, based on complete, quality-
assured monitoring data, that the air quality in the New York-N. New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
(hereafter, the NY-NJ-CT area) is no longer attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard).
Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, EPA is therefore proposing
to rescind the clean data determination (CDD) for this area which was
published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36163).
    EPA notes that it has previously determined that the NY-NJ-CT area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment
date, June 15, 2010.\1\ However, because EPA is proposing to determine
that the area is no longer attaining the 1997 standard, EPA is
proposing a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call pursuant to Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 110(k)(5), to require the States of New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut to submit a SIP demonstrating how the area will
re-attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.
EPA is proposing to issue this SIP call based on its proposed
determination that certified data for 2010-2012, as well as data in
EPA's air quality data repository, the Air Quality System (AQS) for the
most recent three-year period, 2011-2013, show that the area is
currently no longer attaining the 1997 ozone standard. The EPA is
proposing that the required SIPs will be due 18 months after the
effective date of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA wishes to make clear that this proposed rulemaking would
in no way alter or affect the determination contained in its June
18, 2012 notice (77 FR 36163), pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2),
that the NY-NJ-CT area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by
its applicable attainment date of June, 2010. Such a determination
remains undisturbed by EPA's evaluation of subsequent air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA promulgated a new, more
protective standard for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations
(the ``1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS''). The EPA designated and classified
most areas of the country under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30,
2004 final rule (69 FR 23858). The NY-NJ-CT 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area was designated nonattainment and classified as
moderate with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2010. The NY-NJ-CT
area includes Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex Counties in
Connecticut; Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth,
Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren Counties in New
Jersey; and Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland,
Suffolk, and Westchester Counties in New York.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled
``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1,'' referred to as the Phase 1 Rule. On November 29,
2005, EPA issued a final rule (70 FR 71612) entitled ``Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments
Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline,'' referred to as the
Phase 2 Rule. The Phase 2 Rule incorporated the Clean Data Policy in 40
CFR 51.918. Upon EPA's final determination that an area has attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the regulation operates to suspend the obligation
to submit attainment-related planning SIP requirements for that
standard. Affected SIP requirements include attainment demonstrations
and associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable
further progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.918
established that these SIP requirements are suspended until such time
as the area is redesignated to attainment, at which time the
requirements no longer apply; or until EPA determines that the area has
violated the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36163), the EPA issued a CDD for the NY-NJ-
CT area,\2\ based on complete, quality-assured and certified ozone
monitoring data for 2008-2010. Quality assured data available in the
AQS for 2011 indicated that the area continued to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to the Clean Data Policy established by 40
CFR 51.918 of the Phase 2 Rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the
requirements for the states to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable
further progress plans (RFP), contingency measures, and other SIP
revisions related to attainment of the standard were suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 77 FR 36163, June 18, 2012, ``Determinations of Failure To
Attain the One-Hour Ozone Standard by 2007, Current Attainment of
the One-Hour Ozone Standard, and Attainment of the 1997 Eight-Hour
Ozone Standards for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
Nonattainment Area in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, EPA's CDD suspended any
outstanding obligations to submit attainment planning SIPs, the States
of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut had already submitted to EPA
their attainment demonstrations, RACM, RFP plans, and

contingency measures for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the NY-NJ-
CT area. EPA approved the RFP plan, RACM plan and contingency measures
for New Jersey on May 15, 2009 (74 FR 22837) and reasonably available
control technology (RACT) plan for New Jersey on December 22, 2010 (75
FR 80340). EPA approved the RFP plan and contingency measures for New
York on August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51264) and the RACM plan (including
RACT) for New York on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43066). EPA approved the RFP
plan for Connecticut on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50595). EPA also
approved the New York and New Jersey 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration plans on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 9596). EPA proposed,
but has not finalized, approval of the Connecticut ozone attainment
plan for the NY-NJ-CT area. See 78 FR 27161; May 9, 2013.
    As noted above, separately and in addition to its CDD for the NY-
NJ-CT area, pursuant to section 181(b)(2), EPA determined that the area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment
deadline, June 15, 2010. This determination that the area attained by
the applicable deadline was based on complete, quality-assured and
certified ozone monitoring data for 2007-2009.

III. Current Monitoring Data

    Complete, quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for
2010-2012, and data available in the AQS for 2013, indicate that the
NY-NJ-CT area no longer attains the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has
reviewed the 2012 ozone design values, consisting of 2010-2012 data,
and 2013 ozone design values, based on 2011-2013 ambient air quality
data in AQS (in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9, 40 CFR part 50 appendix I,
and EPA policy and guidance, as well as data processing, data rounding
and data completeness requirements) for the NY-NJ-CT area, and is
proposing to determine that the area is no longer in attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Note that for purposes of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, ozone design values are calculated based on the 3-year
average of the annual 4th maximum 8-hour ozone concentration. An area
is considered in nonattainment when the 3-year design value is equal to
or greater than 0.085 parts per million (ppm). For the 2010-2012
period, the 8-hour ozone design value for the NY-NJ-CT area was 0.087
ppm. Data in AQS for the 2011-2013 period further indicate continued
nonattainment. Table 1 below shows the 2010-2012 design values, as well
as the 2011-2013 design values, for all of the ozone monitors in the
NY-NJ-CT area.

                         Table 1--Design Values for Ozone Monitors in the NY-NJ-CT area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2010-2012        2011-2013 *
              State                     Site location          Monitor ID       Design value      Design value
                                                                                (ppm)             (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut......................  Danbury................         090011123             0.083             0.081
Connecticut......................  Greenwich..............         090010017             0.082             0.083
Connecticut......................  Madison................         090093002             0.087             0.089
Connecticut......................  Middletown.............         090070007             0.080             0.081
Connecticut......................  New Haven..............         090099005             0.076             0.078
Connecticut......................  Stratford..............         090013007             0.085             0.089
Connecticut......................  Westport...............         090019003             0.085             0.087
New Jersey.......................  Bayonne................         340170006             0.078             0.070
New Jersey.......................  Chester................         340273001             0.078             0.076
New Jersey.......................  Flemington.............         340190001             0.080             0.077
New Jersey.......................  Leonia.................         340030006             0.078             0.077
New Jersey.......................  Monmouth University....         340250005             0.083             0.078
New Jersey.......................  Newark.................         340130003             0.082             0.077
New Jersey.......................  Ramapo.................         340315001             0.075             0.072
New Jersey.......................  Rutgers University.....         340230011             0.085             0.079
New York.........................  Babylon................         361030002             0.085             0.081
New York.........................  CCNY...................         360610135             0.076             0.072
New York.........................  Pfizer Lab (Bronx).....         360050133             0.076             0.073
New York.........................  Holtsville.............         361030009             0.080             0.078
New York.........................  Queens College.........         360810124             0.080             0.079
New York.........................  Riverhead..............         361030004             0.079             0.080
New York.........................  Susan Wagner...........         360850067             0.083             0.078
New York.........................  White Plains...........         361192004             0.076             0.075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2013 Data not yet certified and is subject to change.

IV. Why is EPA proposing SIP calls to the States in the NY-NJ-CT Area?

    Although EPA recognizes that the NY-NJ-CT area previously attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its original attainment date, EPA's
review of subsequent data has indicated that the area no longer
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Section 110(k)(5)
of the CAA authorizes EPA to find that a SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain a NAAQS, and to require (``call for'')
the state to submit, within a specified period, a SIP revision to
correct the inadequacy. This CAA requirement for a SIP revision is
known as a ``SIP call.'' The CAA authorizes EPA to allow a state up to
18 months to respond to a SIP call. In the circumstances presented
here, and in conjunction with EPA's proposal to rescind its
determination that the NY-NJ-CT area is attaining the NAAQS, EPA is
proposing under section 110(k)(5) to find the SIPs substantially
inadequate with respect to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA therefore proposes to issue SIP calls requiring the States of New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut to develop SIP revisions demonstrating
how the NY-NJ-CT area will re-attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

V. How should the States respond to a final SIP call?

    As noted above, EPA has previously approved attainment
demonstrations for New York and New Jersey and proposed approval of
Connecticut's attainment demonstration for the NY-NJ-CT area. These
approvals and proposed approval

were based on the fact that the plans showed that the NY-NJ-CT area
would attain by the area's June 15, 2010 attainment date. Moreover, as
stated previously, EPA, after notice-and comment rulemaking, determined
the area did attain by that date (77 FR 36163). However, based on the
monitoring data discussed above for the NY-NJ-CT area, EPA is proposing
to determine the area has since violated the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the States submit updated
plans showing how the area will re-attain the standard. EPA is
proposing that the States have two different ways of responding to the
SIP call.
    First, EPA proposes that the States respond to the SIP call by
submitting revisions to their respective SIPs showing how the States
will re-attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    EPA is also proposing, as an alternative response to the SIP call,
that the States develop and submit attainment plans demonstrating
attainment of the current 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\3\ Currently, the
NY-NJ-CT area is designated nonattainment and classified as
``marginal'' for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. An attainment plan is
not required for areas classified as ``marginal,'' but these areas must
still attain the ozone standard. Thus, under this option, New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut may either: (1) Request that the entire NY-NJ-CT
area be reclassified to ``moderate'' for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard
\4\ and prepare the required SIP elements pursuant to a ``moderate''
classification and attain as expeditiously as practicable, but, no
later than 2018; or, (2) voluntarily prepare an attainment SIP for the
NY-NJ-CT area for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, which demonstrates
attainment by the current ``marginal'' classification attainment date,
i.e., 2015. EPA is proposing that this alternative response of
submitting an attainment plan for the 2008 ozone standard would also
satisfy EPA's SIP call on the 1997 8-hour ozone standard being proposed
in this action since it would be demonstrating compliance with a more
stringent NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA revised the primary
NAAQS for ozone, designed to protect public health, to a level of
0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual fourth-highest daily maximum
8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years). In rules finalized on
April 30, 2012 (77 FR 30088), and May 21, 2012 (77 FR 34421), the
EPA formally designated all areas of the country as attainment/
unclassifiable, nonattainment or unclassifiable for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In addition, on June 6, 2013 (78 FR 34178), EPA
proposed a rule for implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS which
also included a proposal to revoke the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    \4\ All three states (New York, New Jersey and Connecticut) of
the NY-NJ-CT area must request the reclassification since it is a
multi-state nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide a reasonable time for the states to develop and
submit either of these two SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to provide
the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut a period of 18
months from the effective date of a final SIP call to develop and
submit to EPA the relevant SIPs for the 1997 or 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
18 months is the maximum period allowed pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(5) and EPA believes it is reasonable time for New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut to develop and submit the relevant SIPs to EPA.
    EPA is proposing that the effective date for a final SIP call and
rescission of the CDD will be 30 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register.

VI. What happens if any of the States (New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut) do not submit a SIP responding to the SIP calls?

    Section 179(a) sets forth four findings that form the basis for
application of sanctions. The first finding, that a State has failed to
submit a plan or one or more elements of a plan required under the CAA,
is the finding that may be relevant to this rulemaking, should the
States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut fail to submit the
required plan (i.e., a SIP revision showing how the state will re-
attain the 1997 ozone standard, or under the alternative response
discussed above, a SIP revision demonstrating attainment of the 2008
ozone standard) in response to this SIP call. If any of the States fail
to submit the required plan, EPA will issue a finding under section
179(a) of the CAA that the State or States failed to make a required
SIP submittal. If within 18 months of the finding, the State or States
of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut have not submitted an
attainment SIP that EPA determines is complete, then the emission
offset sanction will apply automatically pursuant to CAA section 179(a)
and 40 CFR 52.31. Under this sanction, the ratio of emission reductions
that must be obtained to offset increased emissions caused by new major
sources or modifications to major sources in the NY-NJ-CT area must be
at least two to one. If the State or States of New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut do not make a complete submission within six months after
the offset sanction applies, then the highway funding sanction will
apply, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, sanctions would
apply in the same manner if the State or States of New York, New Jersey
and Connecticut submit a plan that EPA determines is incomplete or that
EPA disapproves. Finally, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA
promulgate a FIP no later than 24 months after a finding of failure to
submit a SIP under section 179(a) unless the State or States of New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut have submitted and EPA has approved
the respective attainment plan.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
action. EPA will consider these comments before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.
    Note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a portion of this
action and if that portion can be severed from the remainder of the
action, EPA may adopt as final those provisions that are not the
subject of an adverse comment. In addition, EPA may take final action
on one or more of these actions separately, depending on the
circumstances involved with each State's portion of the area.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes a determination, i.e., that the NY-NJ-CT area
is no longer attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS, based on EPA's review of
air quality data provided by Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. This
action also proposes a SIP call for the States of Connecticut, New
York, and New Jersey. In proposing this SIP call, EPA is acting under
Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA, which requires the Agency to require a
state to correct a deficiency that EPA has found in the State
Implementation Plan of the state. Accordingly, this action does not
impose additional requirements beyond those required by the CAA itself.
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the States, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 2014.
Curt Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
    Dated: April 7, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2014-10827 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                EPA/HQ Summary
                    Facility Visit  -  DRS Product Returns

Attendees

DRS Participants:
Jim Schumacher, Dan Phillips, Christine Kreger
EPA/HQ Participants:
Jessica Young, Drew Lausch, Jim O'Leary, Kristin Fitzgerald, Josh Smeraldi, Kathy Lett, Ricardo Jones
PADEP Participant:
Michael Maiolie
Other Participants:
Tracy Pellicori (S.C. Johnson), Joshua Mishleau (S.C. Johnson), Joshua Lipnick (Pfizer)

Date:  December 1, 2015

Location:  2525 North 12th Street, Suite 2100, Reading, PA 19605

Summary

As part of ongoing outreach efforts associated with development of EPA's Retail RCRA Strategy, the Agency met with DRS and other representatives and toured the reverse logistics center.  Discussions focused on:  (1) the role played by reverse logistics centers, such as DRS, in the management and ultimate disposition of consumer goods that have become unsalable at retail stores and are moving through the reverse distribution process and (2) regulatory efforts already underway, such as the proposed Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals and Generator Improvements rules and planned guidance, to address RCRA-related issues, including retail sector challenges in terms of complying with RCRA regulations.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39498-39500]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17062]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0246]

Hours of Service of Drivers: HEPACO, LLC; Heritage Environmental
Services, LLC; Lewis Environmental, Inc.; and Moran Environmental
Recovery, LLC; Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received a joint application from
HEPACO, LLC; Heritage Environmental Services, LLC; Lewis Environmental,
Inc.; and Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC, for exemption from the
hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for drivers engaged in providing
direct assistance in environmental emergencies or potential
environmental emergencies. The applicants request a

five-year exemption from the ``14-hour rule'' for their drivers engaged
in responding to environmental emergencies. FMCSA requests public
comment on this application for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2018-0246 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, please contact Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email: [email protected].
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2018-0246), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2018-0246'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The following companies are the applicants for this exemption:
HEPACO, LLC; Heritage Environmental Services, LLC; Lewis Environmental,
Inc. and Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC. The applicants' total
number of commercial driver's license (CDL) holders is approximately
758, and their total number of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) is
approximately 840. All of these applicants are members of the Spill
Control Association of America (SCAA). In responding to emergency
incidents, SCAA members work alongside a mix of both private industry
and public agencies, and their work often has a direct impact on
protection of both public safety and the environment. SCAA advises that
the applicants are contractually required to provide direct assistance
to responsible parties who are experiencing environmental emergencies
or potential environmental emergencies. The applicants define an
environmental emergency as a sudden threat to the public health or the
well-being of the environment, arising from the release or potential
release of oil, radioactive materials, or hazardous chemicals into the
air, land, or water. The applicants' employees are hybrid driver/
operator/technicians, so the total on-duty time can be a challenge,
especially after hours. Other job duties include industrial
maintenance, spill response, sampling, lab packing and waste
management. With the current driver shortage, obtaining drivers with
these additional skills and experience is becoming more problematic.
    The applicants are requesting relief from 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2),
commonly known as the ``14-hour rule.'' The applicants state that the
HOS rules have always been an issue for emergency response companies.
The national shortage of drivers, and in their case, drivers with
specialized safety and environmental training, has been worsening over
the last few years, making this a critical issue. They are requesting
this exemption to allow their companies to respond to a release or

threat of a release of oil and other hazardous materials. The
applicants are requesting relief from this regulation with the
following conditions:
     On-duty period would not exceed 4.5 additional hours for
initial response;
     Any driver who exceeds the 14-hour period would in no case
exceed a total of 8 hours drive time;
     Drivers would not exceed 70 hours on duty in 8 days;
     Drivers would be required to take 10 hours off duty,
subsequent to the duty day; and
     All activities would be subject to the electronic logging
device (ELD) rule.
    According to the applicants, there would be a significant challenge
in responding to environmental emergencies if the exemption was not
granted. The initial response hours are the most critical in an
environmental emergency and the ability to quickly respond is vital.
They believe that a tightly managed exemption actually provides a risk
averse situation by discouraging potentially unmanaged risk taking. If
the exemption is not granted, there could be a disruption of nation/
regional commerce activities, including power restoration activities
and protection of interstate commerce and infrastructure. Granting the
exemption would mitigate public transportation disruptions, much as tow
trucks do when moving wrecked or disabled vehicles under 49 CFR
390.23(a)(ii)(3).

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    The applicants believe that the proposed relief, and the parameters
in which their drivers operate, would continue to provide the highest
level of safety and compliance, while prudently responding to incidents
that threaten public safety and the environment. Safety is always the
primary objective and guiding principle of all of the applicant's
business activities as demonstrated by the following:
     All applicants have specific policies on ``fatigue and
journey management.''
     Health and safety is paramount for all operations dealing
with environmental emergencies and would remain the case when utilizing
the exemption.
     Drivers who utilize this exemption may come back into
compliance and restart the computation of maximum driving time only
after 10 hours off duty which starts at the end of their extended hours
period.
     The exemption would not exempt drivers/carriers from the
requirements relating to the CDL, drug/alcohol testing, hazardous
materials, size and weight, or State/Federal registration and tax
requirements.
     The applicants understand the concepts of risk management
and mitigation.
     The applicants maintain a multitude of safety, security,
annual medical surveillance, and training plans, as well as
comprehensive drug and alcohol programs compliant with multiple DOT
departments.
     Robust preventative maintenance programs specific to the
equipment are in place with each of the requesting applicants.
    The applicants believe an equivalent level of safety will be
achieved if their drivers/companies are exempt from the requirements as
described in this notice. The requested exemption is for 5 years. A
copy of the application for exemption is available for review in the
docket for this notice.

    Issued on: August 2, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-17062 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P