[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4294-4295]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1746]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0742; FRL 9511-1]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Air Pollution Regulations for
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Activities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0742, to (1) the EPA on-line at www.regulations.gov, or by
mail to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) the OMB at:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Painter, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division (C504-03), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA has submitted the following ICR to
the OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed
in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58273), EPA sought
comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no
comments. EPA completed an active consultation with the U.S. Department
of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (formerly the
Minerals Management Service) in November 2011. Three comments were
received, and the EPA has addressed the comments. Any

additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to the EPA and the
OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0742, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use the EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that the EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose
public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information
about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Air Pollution Regulations for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Activities (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1601.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0249.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2012. Under OMB regulations, the agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at the OMB. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA responsibility
for regulating air pollution from outer continental shelf (OCS) sources
located offshore of the states along the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic
Coasts, and along the eastern Gulf of Mexico coast (off the coast of
Florida). In general, these OCS sources must obtain preconstruction
permits (usually Prevention of Significant Deterioration or ``PSD''
permits) and title V operating permits, and then maintain ongoing
compliance with their permit conditions. Industry respondents include
owners or operators of existing and new or modified OCS sources. These
respondents must prepare permit applications and, after receiving their
permits, conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting as
required by their permits. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are necessary so that EPA can determine whether these sources are
meeting all the requirements that apply to them. EPA has delegated the
authority to implement and enforce the OCS regulations for sources
located off the coast of California to four local air pollution control
agencies.
    These agency respondents must review sources' permit applications
and reports, issue permits, observe performance tests and conduct
inspections to ensure that the sources are meeting all the requirements
that apply to them. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401
et seq.) requires that all federal actions conform with the State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Depending
on the type of action, the federal entities must collect information
themselves, hire consultants to collect the information or require
applicants/sponsors of the federal action to provide the information.
    The type and quantity of information required will depend on the
circumstances surrounding the action. First, the entity must make an
applicability determination. If the source is located within 25 miles
of the state's seaward boundaries as established in the regulations,
the requirements are the same as those that would be applicable if the
source were located in the corresponding onshore area. State and local
air pollution control agencies are usually requested to provide
information concerning regulation of offshore sources and are provided
opportunities to comment on the proposed determinations. The public is
also provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed determinations.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 124
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose
or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
    Estimated Total Number of Potential Respondents: 42 (38 sources and
4 local agencies).
    Estimated Number of Responses: 228.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 28,174.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $2,532,877, which includes no
annualized capital/startup costs, $34,900 in O&M costs and $2,497,977
in annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,623 hours and
$7,856 in capital/startup and O&M costs in the total estimated burden
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This
decrease has occurred because projections from BOEM and other
considerations have resulted in changes in the number, mix and types of
sources projected to occur in the upcoming clearance period. As a
result of the decrease in annual burden hours, which is partially
offset by updated 2011 wage rates, the estimated annual labor cost has
decreased by $70,212.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-1746 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comments on EPA Memorandum on 2005 Grower Impact Assessment of
azinphos-methyl use on apples (DP 307589)

Greg Krawczyk and Larry A. Hull

The Pennsylvania State University

Department of Entomology

Fruit Research and Extension Center

Biglerville, PA 17307

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext.5

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
This document also include comments provided by Dr. James Walgenbach,
North Carolina State University

Summary of current uses of azinphos-methyl in Pennsylvania and Mid
–Atlantic region.  Azinphos-methyl (AZM) remains one of the most
widely used insecticides by fruit producers in PA and the entire
mid-Atlantic region.  With its wide spectrum of pest activity, AZM is
still listed as one of the best materials to control: codling moth,
oriental fruit moth, European apple sawfly, plum curculio and apple
maggot.  All of these insect pests are internal fruit feeders, a group
of pests that is responsible for close to 3000 rejections of fruit loads
destined to local fruit processors since 1998.  The processing fruit
standards enforced by USDA inspectors during fruit evaluation at
delivery call for rejection of the entire load if a single live insect
larva is found in the delivered fruit.  The detection of a single
“fruit worm” in the fruit results in rejection of entire load, often
1,000 bushels of fruit.

AZM is also quite active against another group of pests called
leafrollers which affect the surface of the fruit: obliquebanded
leafroller, tufted apple bud moth, red banded leafroller and other which
can be found in our region orchards.   This group of pests, although not
the most important for our processing growers, is very important for the
fresh market part of our industry, where the slightest blemishes on the
fruit surface reduce the price for the crop and often can force the
grower to redirect fruit from the fresh market into processing.

Currently, an average insecticide program on apples for our region
includes up to four applications of AZM per season.  This high number of
applications is possible due to low usage rate of AZM in a manner that
still provides adequate pest control (usually at 1.5-2.0 lb per acre/per
application).  With our multi-species pest complex present at many
periods during the season, the following pest groups can be controlled
with a single application of AZM: a) a petal fall application controls
oriental fruit moth, plum curculio, European apple sawfly and affects
obliquebanded leafrolller; b) an application used during the first
and/or second cover period is directed against the first generation of
codling moth and tufted apple bud moth; c) any of the mid-summer
applications provide excellent control of apple maggot and later
generations of oriental fruit moth; and d) the late summer applications
provide control of codling moth, oriental fruit moth,  apple maggot,
obliquebanded leafroller  and tufted apple moth on late maturing
varieties.  If pesticide resistance is not a factor, such applications
of AZM should provide a very effective management tool for our diverse
pest complex.

Available alternatives to AZM use on apples.

New compounds: During the last few years, numerous compounds were
registered for use on apples but none of them can provide comparable
pest spectrum activity or efficacy similar to AZM.  Examples of these
new registrations include: acetamiprid and thiacloprid (active against
oriental fruit moth and codling moth, European apple sawfly and plum
curculio but not against leafrollers), methoxyfenozide and novaluron
(effective against leafrollers and internal feeders but not against plum
curculio, European apple sawfly or apple maggot), and indoxacarb which
controls similar spectrum of apple pests but its efficacy is lower than
AZM under the same population pressure.  Other new compounds such as
spinosad, CM granulosis virus or pyriproxyfen provide good control but
for only a very limited number of pests.

Mating disruption (MD) is another very effective method for controlling
oriental fruit moth and codling moth, but the very high initial cost of
the treatments combined with the “only one pest “ activity
characteristic makes this control method practical only in a very
limited number of orchards with very high, problematic populations of
those two pests.  As much as the MD treatments are often the only way to
control pesticide resistant pest populations, it is not an economically
viable component of standard pest management tactics, especially where
multiple pest species need to be controlled at the same time.

Synthetic pyrethroids (SP), carbamates and other organophosphate
compounds (such as phosmet) are also part of the available assortment of
insecticides registered for fruit pest control.  The low material costs
and relatively wide spectrum of activity makes the SP products very
attractive alternatives for controlling fruit pests traditionally
controlled by AZM.  But multiple research trials over the years as well
as field observations has proven that SP materials in the long run are
very destructive to the natural enemy complexes and the use of compounds
from this group generally results in an increase in populations of
secondary pests (such as mites or scales) that will require additional
applications of insecticides or acaricides.

Resistance management.  The existence of pesticide resistance to AZM,
phosmet, synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates in some codling moth and
oriental fruit moth populations, effectively eliminates the use of these
alternatives  as the primary groups to replace the current uses of AZM.
At the same time, it remains an open question about how fast resistance
to the newly registered compounds will develop in the field.  Some
laboratory data suggests that possible cross-resistance already exists
between the old and new chemical groups.  Elimination from the system of
the most effective OP compound (AZM) could result in a lower number of
possible alternatives for a rational rotation.

Efficacy of AZM alternatives.  Although some of the new compounds
provide equal or better control of specific pest species than AZM, none
of them equals AZM in its ability to control various pests with a single
application.  In Pennsylvania and the mid-Atlantic region, where the
apple pest complex is very diverse, a treatment that would be as equally
effective as AZM, would either require a mixture of various compounds or
multiple applications of the same compound, often at much higher rates.

BEAD scenarios of fruit pests control with complete or partial removal
of AZM from the market:

Scenario 1 suggests replacement of AZM applications with an equal number
of phosmet applications.  In Pennsylvania orchards, a single application
of AZM can likely be replaced with a single application of phosmet, but
with a rate that is at least 2.5-3.0 times higher than AZM (i.e., AZM =
1.5 lb, phosmet = 3.75-4.5 lbs).  Based on a PA local dealer price list
(UAP Northeast) such a substitution would cost $54-75 more per acre (4
applications of Guthion at 1.5 lb/acre at $8.83 per lb replaced with 4
applications of Imidan at 3.75-4.5lbs/acre at $7.15 per lb).

Under this scenario, it is likely that the quality of fruit will
decrease and actually more pounds of AI will be delivered to the
environment.

Scenario 2 suggests replacement of AZM applications with one application
of thiacloprid (Calypso(), two applications of novaluron (Rimon() and
one application of acetamiprid (Assail().  The price difference between
these treatments calculated based on the same local dealer price list
will be $89.98 (1.5 lb Guthion( replaced with 3.4 oz of Assail @ $12.60
per oz; 6 oz Calypso @ $6.79/oz and two applications of 20 oz of Rimon @
$1.48 per oz).

Scenario 3 suggests replacement of AZM with CM mating disruption along
with a single rescue treatment of AZM.  Such a scenario would be roughly
$80 more expensive than 4 AZM applications depending on the kind of
mating disruption materials used for the treatment.  Under this scenario
the cost of control of other pests is completely ignored and not
involved in the economic calculation.  The single species MD material
will not control other pest species present in Pennsylvania and
mid-Atlantic orchards.

The economic analyses of the various presented scenarios for AZM
replacement assume that AZM is only used to control codling moth and
completely ignores the other pests in the fruit system in the eastern
U.S.  It is an unrealistic and unacceptable assumption for the
assessment of possible economic effects of AZM removal from the apple
system.  Other pests, as presented in the earlier part of this
discussion, also need to be controlled.  Thus, additional insecticide
applications will have to be added to the cost analysis.  Such additions
would probably completely change the economic outcomes of the evaluated
scenarios.  Additionally, none of the scenarios take into account the
additional costs related to the increased need for orchard monitoring
and scouting required for proper applications of these new compounds.
The change in the pesticide assortment is not a simple change in the
names of the compounds, but it is rather a change in how growers need to
think about pest management.  The proper use of the recently registered
chemistries requires a whole new set of knowledge about each single
compound and how each can be used in the most effective manner.

At the same time, although the cost of insecticide programs as part of
the total cost of fruit production represents only a small portion of
all inputs needed to produce good quality fruits, it is still the
portion that growers can still affect and try to reduce as much as
possible.  Under current conditions, it is almost impossible to reduce
any more the cost of labor or energy, other major factors affecting
grower profit.  Often, the cost of pesticide treatments are the only
part of the total production costs that growers can still manipulate.
And the scenarios presented in the BEAD document are taking away even
this small portion of the constantly shrinking grower profit.

Summary:

The economic effect of the AZM removal scenarios undervalued the real
economic impact that such removal will have on fruit growers in the
eastern U.S.  The three scenarios, where codling moth is the only pest,
are more specifically applicable to the western U.S. fruit production
areas, and do not represent feasible options for eastern U.S. fruit
growers.  Although, effective alternatives are available for the
majority of pests controlled with previous AZM applications, the high
cost of such replacements would most likely be unacceptable for most
eastern U.S. fruit growers during the foreseeable future.  Results of
our research trials conducted under our recently completed RAMP (Risk
Avoidance and Mitigation Program) project (2005) suggest that effective
control of fruit pests without OP insecticides is possible, but at this
moment such a change is highly costly and resource prohibitive.
Additionally, more education will be needed for the grower community on
how these newer materials work, how to use them most effectively, and
how to avoid major fruit quality losses.  Even though there are a number
of  available alternatives, if AZM will be removed from the eastern U.S.
fruit market, a long transitional period will be necessary.  The fact
that alternative methods to control the pest complex present in eastern
U.S. orchards are available does not mean that those methods represent a
better alternative choice for fruit growers.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2