[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 37191]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14782-000]

Energy Resources USA Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On May 4, 2016, Energy Resources USA Inc. filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the R.D. Bailey Dam
Hydroelectric Project (R.D. Bailey Project or project) to be located at
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' R.D. Bailey Dam on the
Guyandotte River in Mingo and Wyoming Counties, West Virginia. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new 90-
foot-long by 45-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse to be located
downstream on the tailrace side of R.D. Bailey Dam; (2) a new 12-foot
by 9-foot by 250-foot-long concrete conduit connecting the existing
outlet tunnel with the powerhouse; (3) two 5-megawatt (MW) vertical
Kaplan turbine-generator units with a total generating capacity of 10
MW; (4) a new 120-foot-long by 80-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a new 60-
foot-long by 50-foot-wide substation with a 10-mega-volt-ampere 4.16/
69-kilovolt (kV) three-phase step-up transformer; (6) a new 0.6-mile-
long, 69-kV transmission line; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The R.D.
Bailey Project would have an estimated annual generation of 38.5
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA Inc.,
350 Lincoln Road, 2nd Floor, Miami, FL 33139; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14782-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14782) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 2, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13648 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 32826-32828]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62196; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Rebates for Adding and Fees for Removing Liquidity

June 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 20, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to
increase the number of options to be included in the Exchange's current
rebates for adding, and fees for removing, liquidity. In addition, the
Exchange proposes to clarify its rebates for adding and fees for
removing liquidity, specifically the applicability of fees to
electronic auctions.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after June 1, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is [sic] The Exchange
proposes to increase liquidity and to attract order

flow by increasing the number of options to be included in the
Exchange's current rebates for adding and fees for removing liquidity.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add the following twenty-
five options: Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (``ABK''), Barrick Gold
Corporation (``ABX''), Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (``ARIA''), American
Express Company (``AXP''), Ciena Corp. (``CIEN''), Star Scientific,
Inc. (``CIGX''), Dendreon Corp. (``DNDN''), eBay Inc. (``EBAY''),
Corning Inc. (``GLW''), Halliburton Company (``HAL''), iShares Dow
Jones US Real Estate (``IYR''), Motorola, Inc., (``MOT''), NVIDIA
Corporation (``NVDA''), ON Semiconductor Corp. (``ONNN''), Oracle Corp.
(``ORCL''), ProShares UltraShort, QQQ (``QID''), Transocean Ltd.
(``RIG''), Rambus, Inc. (``RMBS''), ProShares UltraShort S&P500
(``SDS''), ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (``TBT''), Visa, Inc.
(``V''), Vale S.A. (``VALE''), SPDR S&P Homebuilders (``XHB''), Xerox
Corp. (``XRX''), Yahoo! Inc. (``YHOO'') collectively (``the options'').
The options would be subject to the rebates for adding and fees for
removing liquidity.
    The Exchange currently assesses a per-contract transaction charge
in various select symbols \3\ (the ``select Symbols'') on six different
categories of market participants that submit orders and/or quotes that
``take,'' liquidity from the Exchange: (i) Specialists, Registered
Options Traders (``ROTs''),\4\ Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \5\
and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''); \6\ (ii) customers; \7\
(iii) specialists, SQTs and RSQTs that receive Directed Orders
(``Directed Participants'' \8\ or ``Directed Specialists, RSQTs, or
SQTs'' \9\); (iv) Firms; (v) broker-dealers; and (vi)
Professionals.\10\ The current per-contract transaction charge depends
on the category of market participant submit orders and/or quotes that
``take,'' liquidity from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The fees and rebates for adding and removing liquidity are
applicable to executions in options overlying AA, AAPL, AIG, ALL,
AMD, AMR, AMZN, BAC, BRCD, C, CAT, CSCO, DELL, DIA, DRYS, EK, F,
FAS, FAZ, GDX, GE, GLD, GS, IBM, INTC, IWM, JPM, LVS, MGM, MSFT, MU,
NEM, NOK, PALM, PFE, POT, QCOM, QQQQ, RIMM, SBUX, SIRI, SKF, SLV,
SMH, SNDK, SPY, T, TZA, UAUA, UNG, USO, UYG, VZ, WYNN, X and XLF
(``Symbols'').
    \4\ A ROT includes a SQT, a RSQT and a Non-SQT, which by
definition is neither a SQT or a RSQT. See Exchange Rule 1014 (b)(i)
and (ii).
    \5\ An SQT is an Exchange Registered Options Trader (``ROT'')
who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically through an electronic interface
with AUTOM via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting
device in eligible options to which such SQT is assigned. See
Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A).
    \6\ An RSQT is an ROT that is a member or member organization
with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission
from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations
electronically through AUTOM in eligible options to which such RSQT
has been assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. See Exchange Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B).
    \7\ This applies to all customer orders, directed and non-
directed.
    \8\ For purposes of the fees and rebates related to adding and
removing liquidity, a Directed Participant is a Specialist, SQT, or
RSQT that executes a customer order that is directed to them by an
Order Flow Provider and is executed electronically on PHLX XL II.
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1080(l), ``* * * The term `Directed
Specialist, RSQT, or SQT' means a specialist, RSQT, or SQT that
receives a Directed Order.'' A Directed Participant has a higher
quoting requirement as compared with a specialist, SQT or RSQT who
is not acting as a Directed Participant. See Exchange Rule 1014.
    \10\ The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s)
(hereinafter ``Professional''). See Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also currently assesses a per-contract rebate of
transaction charges for orders or quotations that add liquidity in the
select Symbols. The amount of the rebate depends on the category of
participant whose order or quote was executed as part of the Phlx Best
Bid and Offer. The Exchange proposes to add the twenty-five additional
options to the list of select Symbols applicable to the rebates for
adding and fees for removing liquidity.
    The Exchange also proposes to clarify its rebates for adding and
fees for removing liquidity, specifically the applicability of fees to
electronic auctions. Currently, the Exchange describes the
applicability of rebates for adding liquidity and fees for removing
liquidity, in an electronic auction, as follows: ``Customer,
Professional, Directed Participant and Specialist, ROT, SQT and RSQT
fees for removing liquidity will not apply to transactions resulting
from electronic auctions. Electronic auctions include, without
limitation, the Complex Order Live Auction (``COLA''), and Quote and
Market Exhaust auctions. Firm and Broker-Dealer fees for removing
liquidity will, however apply to transactions resulting from electronic
auctions.'' The Exchange proposes to make clear that a Specialist, ROT,
including an SQT and RSQT, would not receive a rebate for adding
liquidity in an electronic auction.\11\ The Exchange proposes to add
language to the Fee Schedule to clarify the applicability of rebates
for adding liquidity in an electronic auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange is unable to calculate the rebates for
Specialists, ROTs, including SQTs and RSQTs, in an electronic
auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative for transactions settling on or after June 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members. The Exchange believes that
the addition of the options to the rebates for adding and fees for
removing liquidity is reasonable and equitable in that it will apply to
all categories of participants in the same manner. The fees which are
currently applicable to each market participant will continue to apply
to the select Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that clarifying the applicability of the
rebates for adding liquidity in an electronic auction is reasonable
because it clearly states when the rebate is applicable to certain
transactions. The Exchange also believes that the clarification is
equitable because it makes clear what fees will be assessed to
Specialists, ROTs, including SQTs and RSQTs, in an electronic auction.
Currently, Specialists, ROTs, including SQTs and RSQTs, do not receive
rebates for adding liquidity in an electronic auction. The Exchange's
proposal would add language to the Fee Schedule to state that with
respect to electronic auctions, Specialists and ROTs would not receive
a rebate, which language is consistent with the Exchange's current
practice.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-73 and should be
submitted on or before June 30, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13827 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61133-61134]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24526]

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

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 final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the 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 actual and potential
environmental emergencies. FMCSA analyzed the exemption application and
the public comments received in response to the Agency's August 9,
2018, notice announcing receipt of the request. The Agency has
concluded there is no basis for determining that the terms and
conditions of an exemption would achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.

DATES: This decision is effective November 12, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0246 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.

    The Agency reviews the 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 specify the effective period (up
to 5 years) and explain its terms and conditions. The exemption may be
renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The following companies applied for this exemption: HEPACO, LLC;
Heritage Environmental Services, LLC; Lewis Environmental, Inc. and
Moran Environmental Recovery, LLC. They all are members of the Spill
Control Association of America (SCAA), which filed the exemption
application on their behalf. Together, the four companies have 758
commercial driver's license holders and 840 commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs). In responding to emergency incidents, these companies work
alongside a mix of both private industry and public agencies. Often,
their work often has a direct impact on protecting both public safety
and the environment. They are required contractually to provide direct
assistance to responsible parties who are experiencing actual or
potential environmental emergencies, defined as a sudden threat to the
public health or the well-being of the environment, arising from the
release of oil, radioactive materials, or hazardous chemicals into the
air, land or water. Their employees are hybrid driver/operator/
technicians, whose work challenges the limits on total on-duty time,
especially after hours. In addition, the applicant references the
current driver shortage and argues that obtaining drivers with the
necessary additional skills and experience is problematic.
    The applicants requested relief from 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), commonly
known as the ``14-hour rule.'' The applicants state that the HOS
limitations have always been an issue for emergency response companies.
They request this exemption to allow these four companies to respond to
a release or threat of a release of oil and other hazardous materials,
subject to the following conditions for each driver:
     The on-duty period may not exceed 4.5 additional hours for
a total of 18.5 hours of non-consecutive on-duty time before the
required reset;
     Driving time for drivers who exceed the 14-hour period may
not exceed 8 hours;
     Driving is not permitted after 70 hours on duty in 8 days;
     Drivers must take 10 hours off duty following the duty
day; and
     All drivers must comply with the electronic logging device
rule.
    According to the applicants, the initial response hours are the
most critical in an environmental emergency and the ability to quickly
respond is vital. These companies' drivers typically drive 1-2 hours
each way to and from the incident. In no case, would these companies'
drivers exceed 8 hours of drive time per incident. SCAA states that if
the exemption is not granted, there could be a disruption of national/
regional commerce, including delays in power restoration and protection
of interstate commerce and infrastructure.
    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. A copy of the
application for exemption is available for review in the docket for
this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On August 9, 2018, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comment (83 FR 39498). The Agency received six
comments--two from spill response contractors and four from
individuals. Three individuals and both spill response contractors
support the proposed exemption.
    One commenter opposed the application, stating ``[p]lease do not
allow this exemption. This is a wonderful opportunity to hire more
employees, should they need to work more than 14 hours in a day. This
has been in effect for many years, and for safety no driver should be
allowed to work more than 14 hours.''

V. FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated SCAA's application and the public comments
submitted and hereby denies the exemption. When the Agency established
the rules mandating HOS, it relied upon research indicating that the
rules improve CMV safety. These regulations put limits in place for
when and how long an individual may drive to ensure that drivers stay
awake and alert while driving and to reduce the possibility of driver
fatigue.
    Based on the body of research underlying the HOS requirements,
there is no basis for granting an exemption that would allow an
individual to drive after the 18th hour of coming on duty. Although
SCAA explained that drivers would not exceed 8 hours of driving time
during a work shift, the Agency does not believe there is a basis for
concluding that the 8-hour limit on driving time offsets the potential
increase in safety risks associated with an 18.5 hour driving window.
    Except for the limit on driving time, the applicants would comply
with all the other applicable HOS requirements, including using
electronic logging devices and requiring drivers to take 10 consecutive
hours off-duty at the end of the work shift. The applicants are
essentially requesting that the 14-hour rule be extended by 4.5 hours
in exchange for a 3-hour reduction in the driving time limit. The
Agency does not find this safety tradeoff to be persuasive.
    The SCAA application does not analyze the safety impacts the
exemption may cause nor does it provide countermeasures to ensure that
the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current
regulations. Furthermore, the applicant did not clearly define the
conditions that would trigger the exemption.

    Issued on: November 5, 2019.
Jim Mullen,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-24526 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


July 28, 2006 1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection: Pesticide Product Registration Maintenance Fee ICR Numbers: EPA No.: 1214.07 OMB No.: 2070 0100 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract:

This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is a proposed renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved by OMB and due to expire May 31, 2007. This collection provides a practical means of communication between the registrants and Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) to collect registration maintenance fees from pesticide registrants as required by law. Respondents complete and submit EPA Form 8570 30 ( Attachment A) indicating the respondent's liability for the registration maintenance fee. No changes in the substance or in the method of collection is proposed in this ICR renewal request. The first Registration Maintenance Fee filing form was sent to approximately 5,000 pesticide registrant firms in 1989. Since then, the number of respondents has slowly declined from approximately 2800 firms in 1990 to 2500 in 1991, 2350 in 1992, 2250 in 1993, and 2200 in 1994. Since 1994, the number of registrants to which these forms are sent has declined steadily to a total of 1,720 in January, 2006 Each affected firm is required to complete the filing form and submit their fee payment by January 15 of each year.

Annually, the Agency provides registrants a list of the registered products currently registered with the Agency. Registrants are provided the opportunity to review the list, determine its accuracy, and remit payment of the maintenance fee. The list of products has space identified for marking those products to be supported and those products that are to be canceled. The registrants are also instructed to identify any products on the list which they believe to be transferred to another company, and to add to the list any products which the company believes to be registered that are not on the Agency provided list. The failure to pay the required fee for a product will result in cancellation of that product's registration.

The form is printed on 3 part NCR paper. The respondent sends one copy along with payment to the Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch Lock Box in St. Louis and the second copy together with the annotated list of products to OPP via a designated Washington D. C. area mail box. The third copy is retained by the respondent for his own records. Information contained on the forms returned to OPP is used to check and ensure that the proper amount of fees have been submitted by each registrant. In the past there has been a need for follow up with some registrants when the information provided indicates that there has been a misunderstanding of the requirements. For the most part these have been handled by telephone. July 28, 2006 2 There is also a toll free information line available which registrants may use to ask questions and resolve problems regarding their maintenance fee payments. The information provided also serves as an update for pesticide product information files. Updates of the Agency's files are an ongoing process.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection On October 25, 1988, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was amended in several significant ways. Among the new provisions of the Act was the institution of registration maintenance fees ( FIFRA) Section 4( i)( 5), Attachment B. These fees apply to all products registered under Section 3 and Section 24( c) of FIFRA. The fees are to be paid annually for each product registered and payable on January 15 of each year beginning in 1989. The authority to collect fees under the 1988 amendments would have terminated on September 30, 1997. However the Food Quality Protection Act extended the authority to collect these fees until September 30, 2001. The EPA Appropriation Bills of FY 2002 and FY 2003 also extended the authority to collect maintenance fees. The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act ( PRIA), which became effective on March 23, 2004 further extended the authority to collect maintenance fees thru fiscal year 2008.

In order to provide an efficient system to bill, collect, and account for registration maintenance fees, the Agency has used a filing form which is sent to all registrants of currently active products.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The data are used by the Agency to ensure that the fees prescribed by FIFRA have been paid by each registrant. The information is also used to adjust OPP's computer files to reflect changes in the status of registrations resulting from registrant responses.

3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non duplication The specific information required under this ICR does not exist in data bases at EPA or any other agency. To determine the amount of maintenance fees accurately, the Agency and the registrant must have a joint understanding concerning the number of products currently registered. An alternative approach considered prior to seeking approval for the original maintenance fee filing form ( ICR) was to simply notify registrants that fees were due for each of their products according to a fee schedule. The registrant would submit payment according to their best information concerning the number of registrations that they wanted to support. However, if a registrant submitted payment that did not correspond to the fee schedule, the July 28, 2006 3 Agency would be in a position of either unilaterally determining which registrations to cancel, or contacting each registrant to determine that registrant's intentions. This option was considered to be inefficient, and not in the best interest of the Agency or the registrants.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d), EPA is publishing a Federal Register ( FR) notice soliciting comment on this information collection activity and the Agency's intent to renew the OMB approval of this ICR. The FR notice and the proposed renewal ICR as well as any public comment are located in the docket for this action, which can be accessed at http:// www. regulations. gov using the docket indentifier EPA HQ OPP 2006 0666.

3( c) Consultations During preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff will contact representatives from a cross section of pesticide registrant companies by e mail and telephone to seek feedback on the PRIA waiver process. Their responses to EPA's consultation efforts will be summarized and made publicly available.

In addition to these consultation activities, dialogue between industry and the Agency on the PRIA waivers process, content, definitions, format, and timing is frequent and on going. In addition to phone conversations, e mails, and letters, Agency staff participate in meetings with individual registrants as well as gatherings of large groups of registrants from time to time. These communications permit an exchange of issues, problems, and solutions on many issues.

3( d) Effects of less Frequent Collection The payment of maintenance fees for all pesticide products is mandated in FIFRA amendments to occur annually. Thus, there can be no option other than to require a minimum submission of the filing form once a year. Less frequent information collection in this area would violate the statute.

3( e) General Guidelines With respect to the PRA imposed guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6, the filing form has the following features:

  The respondents are required to respond on an annual basis and hence the quarterly response limitation is not applicable   The respondents are not required to keep records relating to this information collection for a period of more than 3 years. July 28, 2006 4   This information collection activity does not utilize a statistical survey. The requirement to collect maintenance fees for all products means that all pesticide registrants submit replies.

  The respondents are given at least 30 days to respond.

  The information collection under this ICR can be held confidential under long established procedures for properly handling Confidential Business Information. Confidentiality is discussed in more detail below.

  The respondents are not required to submit more than an original and two copies of any document.

  The ICR is for processing of fees mandated by Congress. No provision in the law allows for remuneration of respondents.

  This information collection activity uses automation to the extent that is practicable. For example, the name and address of each respondent is pre printed by computer, alleviating the registrant of the burden of writing it in. A computer generated listing of products is also provided, and the registrant must only circle an appropriate keyword ( CAN, PAY) etc. Because the regulated community runs the gamut from large multinational corporations to small sole proprietor firms, some with limited technological capabilities, the Agency believes that a simple filing form is most applicable.

  As discussed in Section 4( c), this form requires the minimum amount of information from all firms. July 28, 2006 5   This collection activity does not apply to grantees.

3( f) Confidentiality Product registration maintenance fee information submitted by pesticide registrants under this ICR are considered by OPP to contain no confidential business information ( CBI). If, however, registrants submit data that contains CBI or relates to trade secrets or commercial or financial information, such information is protected from disclosure under section 10 of FIFRA. Such data submitted to the EPA are handled strictly in accordance with provisions of the FIFRA Confidential Business Security Manual. This manual contains instructions relative to all contact with confidential documents including responsibilities of EPA employees physical security measures; CBI copying and destruction procedures; transfer of CBI materials within the EPA to contractors or other government offices; computer security; CBI typing procedures; and procedures internal to OPP. The manual dictates that all CBI must be kept in secure ( double locked) areas, and all CBI intended to be destroyed must be cleared by a Document Control Officer and shredded.

3( g) Sensitive Questions 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 All pesticide registrants holding currently active registrations under FIFRA section 3 and Section 24( c) are subject to this information collection activity. These include pesticide companies and state governments. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code is 325320 ( Pesticide and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing) and 9641 ( Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities).

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements Part A  Registrant Identification Registrant Name and Address are pre printed. The registrant needs to complete this section only to indicate a name and/ or address change. July 28, 2006 6 Part B  EPA Company Numbers If a firm has been assigned more than one company number, the firm may combine its fee payments under a single number by writing in all of the company numbers for which the firm is paying.

Part C  Maintenance Fee Calculation The respondent must fill in the number of registrations for which he is paying the fee, number of registrations which he believes to be transferred, number of registrations to be canceled, number of registrations which he believes to be in error, total amount of fee due, and check number.

Part D  Authorized Company Representative or Agent The respondent must print the name and title of the company representative or agent. The respondent must sign and date the form, and provide the telephone number of the respondent.

( ii) Respondent Activities Activities in which a registrant must engage in order to comply with this collection include the following:

Read instructions Read accompanying instructions to understand how to fill out form, annotate list of registrations, and calculate fee due.

Plan Activities Plan the activities necessary to respond to the billing.

Review Information Review the attached listing of registrations and compare to the firm's records.

Complete Paperwork Annotate attached listing of registrations to indicate which products the respondent is paying and which products are to be canceled or transferred. July 28, 2006 7 File Information Maintain a copy of the form in company files. Although this is not required, the Agency assumes that most companies will retain this information as a common business practice.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The following activities are necessary to conduct the information request:

Develop Letter Prepare a cover/ transmittal letter to be included in the package.

Answer Questions Staff a toll free information line to respond to any questions that respondents have regarding payment requirements.

Review Submissions Review submitted forms and annotated listings for completeness.

Record Submissions Record information provided by respondents into a tracking system. Make adjustments to Product Information Master Files as required.

Verify Payments Cross check payment information from Financial Management Division to ensure that payment has been received.

Store Data Image all forms, listings, and telephone conversation logs for archiving.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management For the past 17 years, the Agency has employed the same method of collecting maintenance fees. This method involves using OPP master files of product information to identify the firms to which the billing information is to be sent. Computer generated listings of products July 28, 2006 8 are mailed to each firm along with the Maintenance Fee Filing Form. The registrant is instructed to circle the word PAY, CAN, XFR, ERR, next to each Registration Number to indicate if he wants to pay for the registration, cancel the registration, indicate if he believes that the registration was transferred, or if the registration is listed in error.

The list of registrations is pre loaded into a tracking file, and only the PAY, CAN, XFR, ERR indicator is keyed manually for each product. Company name and address information is also pre loaded reducing the data entry burden for the maintenance fee filing forms. The total number of products for each company is calculated by computer, and totals entered from the filing form are verified by computer to ensure that all items balance. In addition, data entry for all forms is quality checked visually.

Receipt of payment is entered by the Financial Management Division into the Integrated Financial Management System ( IFMS). This information is then extracted and posted to the maintenance fee tracking system to close out each record. Results are made available to OPP staff on request as soon as the information is entered into the tracking system.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The Agency's filing form for the submission of maintenance fees requires the minimum amount of information that is needed to provide adequate communication between pesticide product registrants and the Agency. The needs of small businesses were of primary concern in designing the filing form. The respondents are asked to provide only readily available information. Experience indicates that there is no need for more involved reporting by large business concerns to meet Agency needs. Hence, there is no separate requirement for small businesses versus large business. Only the basic requirement to identify products that firms wish to continue to support is imposed on all registrants. In 1990 the fee structure was changed to provide a 50% discount on the first product supported. Therefore, companies with only one registered product received the greatest benefit from the discount.

5( d) Collection Schedule The payment of maintenance fees for all pesticide products is mandated in FIFRA to occur annually. Thus, there can be no option other than to require a minimum submission of the filing form once a year. Less frequent information collection in this area would violate the statute.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden For a period of some years, when estimating labor rates for most OPP program ICR renewals, the Agency adjusted the ICR renewal labor rates by using methods such as the NASA Gross Domestic Product ( GDP) Deflator Inflation Calculator to index the labor cost for a July 28, 2006 9 particular year. However, in July 2006, Agency economists completely re estimated wages, benefits, and overhead for all labor categories for the pesticide industry, state government and Agency employees. The Agency analysis uses currently available information on labor rates and other benefits from publicly available websites. A copy of the methodology used to re estimate the labor rates and formulas used to derive the fully loaded rates and overhead costs are listed in Attachment C.

To derive the labor rates for this ICR, Agency economists estimated the wages for the management, technical, and clerical labor categories using the methodology cited above. The respondent costs for this renewal for managerial, technical and clerical rates are estimated at $ 100.86, $ 64.80, and $ 33.05 per hour, respectively. These labor rates are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs.

Experience has shown that the average burden per respondent has remained at approximately 1 hour. The agency believes that the decline in actual burden hours is due to the fact that registrants now have 17 years of experience with the form, and the attrition of former pesticide firms that no longer hold pesticide registrations not required to complete this form. In 2006, 1,720 firms responded to the collection request. A summary of firms and their number of registrations is provided below.

Number of Products Number of Registrants Registrants Cumulative total Cumulative %

1   10 1,477 1,477 86%

11   20 95 1,572 91%

21   50 78 1,650 96%

50  100 32 1,682 98%

> 100 38 1,720 100%

Based on conversations with several respondents, we believe that the average time required to complete the maintenance fee filing form depends upon the number of registrations held by the registrant. A list of the registrants contacted is contained in Attachment D. Below is the breakdown of the burden associated with the 2006 maintenance fee filing based on registrantsupplied information.

Number of Products Avg Time ( hrs.) Number of Registrants Tot. Hr.

1   10 0.75 1,477 1108 11   20 1.0 95 95 July 28, 2006 10 21   50 2.0 78 156 51   100 3.0 32 96 > 100 5.0 38 190 Totals 1,720 1,645 1645 ( total hours) / 1720 ( number of respondents) = 0.96 hr. 0.96 hr = average amount of time required to complete the maintenance fee filing form These calculations were made using the average case scenario. The average case burden was developed from the above table.

Respondent Burden For Completing The Maintenance Fee Filing Form: Burden Hours ( per form)

Collection Activities Management Technical Clerical Hour s 1. Read Instructions 0.25 0.25 2. Plan Activities 0.20 0.20 3. Review Information 0.20 0.20 4. Complete Paperwork 0.20 0.20 5. File Information 0.11 0.11 Total 0.40 0.45 0.11 0.96 Total Annual Burden: Avg. Hr. per form ( 0.96) X No. Of Respondents ( 1720) = 1645 hrs.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The table below describes the average costs for completing one maintenance fee filing form. The average hourly burden was derived from conversations with a selected group of respondents, and is described above.

Respondent Costs for Completing the Maintenance Fee Filing Form: Burden Hours ( per form)

Collection Activities Mgmt. ($ 100.86/ hr) Tech. ($ 64.80/ hr) Cler. ($ 33.05/ hr) Costs ($)

1. Read Instructions 0.25 16.20 July 28, 2006 11 2. Plan Activities 0.20 20.17 3. Review Information 0.20 20.17 4. Complete Paperwork 0.20 12.96 5. File Information 0.11 3.64 TOTALS 0.4 ( 40.34) 0.45 ( 29.16) 0.11 ( 3.64) 73.14 0.4 Mgmt Hr. X $ 100.86 = 40.34 0.45 tech Hr. X $ 64.80 = 29.16 0.11 cler Hr. X $ 33.05 = 3.64 $ 73.14 average cost for completing one maintenance fee filing form July 28, 2006 12 $ 73.14 ( average cost for completing one maintenance fee filing form) X 1720 ( respondents) = $ 125,801 total cost 6( c). Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The cost to the Federal Government for this ICR is estimated to be $ 86,319. This is based on actual experience, and the following table and calculations reflect averages.

Agency Burden Hours per filing form and Total Cost Collection Activities Mgmt. ($ 93.07/ hr) Tech. ($ 66.34/ hr) Cler. ($ 47.17/ hr) Cost ($)

1. Generate Listings/ Mass Mailing* 8 16 1285.44 2. Pre load Tracking Data* 4 265.36 3. Receive/ Review Submissions 0.2 16,226.4 8 4. Enter Data into Tracking Sys. 0.2 16,226.4 8 5. Reconcile Discrepancies 0.5 3,317 6. Respond to Questions 0.5 9,951 7. Verify Payment 0.2 22,820.9 6 8. File Documents 0.2 16.226.4 8 Total 13.2 16.6 86,319.2 0 * Estimated burden hours for items 1 and 2 reflect the entire set of forms and the entire set of data pre loaded. The unit cost for this operation is so small that it would not be appropriate to express these figures in terms of units. All other figures reflect the burden for processing an average filing form. Item 3: 1720 responses X 0.2 hr. X $ 47.17 per hour = 16,226.48 Item 4: 1720 responses X 0.2 hr. X $ 47.17 per hour = 16,226.48 Item 5: 100 discrepancies X 0.5 hr. X $ 66.34 per hour = 3,317 Item 6: 300 questions X 0.5 hr X $ 66.34 per hour = 9,951 Item 7: 1720 payments X 0.2 hr X $ 66.34 per hour = 22,820.96 July 28, 2006 13 Item 8: 1720 responses X 0.2 hr. X $ 47.17 per hour = 16,226.48 6( d). Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables Total Annual Respondent and Agency Burden and Costs Total Hours Costs Annual Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates 1,645 $ 125,801 Annual Agency Burden/ Cost Estimates 1,604 $ 86,319 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden The total annual burden for respondents associated with this renewal is 1,645 hours. This reflects a decrease of 118 hours from the last renewal period. The decrease represents the steady decline of the number of pesticide registrants and, therefore, participation under this program. In 2006, the projected estimate is 1,720 registrants. This represents a decrease of 157 respondents from the 1,877 reported in the last ICR renewal. The average time required to complete the maintenance fee filing form depends upon the number of registrations held by the registrant. In addition to fewer respondents in 2006, a smaller percentage of registrants held a small number of registered products. This shift to a slightly larger average number of registrations per registrant resulted in a slight increase in the average burden hours required to complete the form, from 0.94 hours in the last ICR renewal, to 0.96 hours.

Labor rates for both respondents and Agency personnel in this ICR have decreased. In previous renewal cycles, the Agency only adjusted the labor rates to account for inflation. However, for this renewal, Agency economists have completely re estimated labor rates, benefits and overhead costs for both respondents and Agency personnel. This Agency analysis was completed in July, 2006. The Agency believes this is a more realistic estimate of the average respondent and Agency costs. As a result of both the smaller number of respondents and the lower estimated labor rates, there is a decrease of $ 52,889 in the estimated total annual respondent cost ( from $ 178,690 to $ 125,801). This change is an adjustment.

6( f) Burden Statement The annual " respondent" ( applicant) burden for the Pesticide Product Registration July 28, 2006 14 Maintenance Fee program is estimated to average 0.96 hours per form. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection, it is the time reading the regulations, planning the necessary data collection activities, conducting tests, analyzing data, generating reports and completing other required paperwork, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection appear at the beginning and the end of this document. In addition OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA HQ OPP 2006 0660, Publicly available docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at http:// www. regulations. gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S 4400, One Potomac Yard ( South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is ( 703) 305 5805.

Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA  HQ OPP 2006 0660 and OMB Control No. 2070 0100 in any correspondence. July 28, 2006 15 ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT Attachment A EPA Form 8570 30  Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing Form Available electronically at www. epa. gov/ opprd001/ forms/ 8570 30. pdf and in the docket for this information collection activity.

Attachment B: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) Section 4( i)( 5). Available electronically at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ fifra. htm and in the docket for this information collection activity.

Attachment C Methodology for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Industry, State and EPA Labor Costs; Memo From Richard Keigwin, Director Biological and Economic Analysis Division, to Bill Diamond, Arnold Layne, Lois Rossi and Elizabeth Leovey July 25, 2006. Available in the docket for this information collection activity.


[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 44246-44247]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0474; FRL-8830-5]

Petition For Rulemaking to Establish Procedures For The Creation
and Amendment of Endangered Species Protection Bulletins; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of a January 19, 2010
petition from Dow AgroSciences LLC (``DAS''), Makhteshim Agan of North
America, Inc. (``MANA''), and Cheminova, Inc. USA (``Cheminova'')
requesting EPA promulgate a rule for creating and amending Endangered
Species Protection Bulletins (``County Bulletins'') intended to provide
additional label directions as part of the Agency's Endangered Species
Protection Program (ESPP). DAS, MANA, and Cheminova state that
appropriate, clear, and equitable procedures for creating and amending
County Bulletins must be established. They further claim that the
current process used to develop and implement County Bulletins is ad
hoc, and that EPA has no established procedures for input by the
agricultural or forestry communities, or to assure the pesticide
registrant's ability to review, comment upon and/or challenge proposed
language in County Bulletins that would be referenced on its label.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0474, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0474. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Eiden, Pesticide Re-
evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111)
     Animal production (NAICS code 112)
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing availability of a petition from Dow AgroSciences
LLC (``DAS''), Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (``MANA''), and
Cheminova, Inc. USA (``Cheminova'') under docket ID number EPA-HQ-2010-
0474.

List of Subjects

    Environmental Protection, Endangered Species Protection Bulletins,
Endangered Species, Pesticides.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-18381 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S