[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63542-63543]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1757; Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Spanish Fork Municipal Airport/
Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Spanish Fork Municipal
Airport/Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA 2023-1757 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-9 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith T. Adams, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify Class E airspace to support instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at Spanish Fork Municipal Airport/
Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the

proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed
electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written
comments if comments are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: 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.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the office at the Northwest Mountain Regional
Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S
216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E5 airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023.
These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO
7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Spanish Fork Municipal Airport/Woodhouse Field, Spanish Fork, UT.
    The existing Class E airspace is comprised of 6.5-mile radius
around the airport. This area should be expanded to better contain
departing IFR operations until they reach 1,200 feet above the surface
on the SPANISH FORK ONE DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) procedure. A 6.9-mile
radius around the airport would fully contain this procedure. Finally,
a 2.1-mile extension from the airport's 326[deg] bearing extending 2
mile either side should be added. The extension will better contain IFR
arrival operations below 1,500 feet above the surface on the Area
Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) Y Runway (RWY) 12
and RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 12 approaches.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Spanish Fork, UT [Amended]

Spanish Fork Airport-Woodhouse Field, UT
    (Lat. 40[deg]08'42'' N, long. 111[deg]40'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport, and within 2 miles each
side of the 326[deg] bearing extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 9
miles northwest of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 6, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-19594 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18805-18810]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07559]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0258; FRL-9907-67]

Metaflumizone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
metaflumizone in or on eggplant, pepper, tomato, and tomato, paste.
BASF Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 4, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 3, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0258, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0258 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
June 3, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0258, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 5, 2013 (78 FR 33785) (FRL-9386-2),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E8146)
by BASF Corporation, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27790.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.657 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the insecticide metaflumizone, (E and Z
isomers; 2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]
hydrazinecarboxamide), and its metabolite (4-{2-oxo-2-[3-
(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethyl{time} -benzonitrile), in or on eggplant
at 0.6 parts per million (ppm); pepper at 0.6 ppm; and tomato at 0.6
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the tolerances for eggplant and pepper should each be
established at 1.5 ppm, the tolerance for tomato should be established
at 0.60 ppm, and that an additional tolerance for tomato, paste should
be established at 1.2 ppm. The reasons for these changes are explained
in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean 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.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for metaflumizone including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with metaflumizone
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Hematotoxicity (toxicity of the blood) was the primary toxic effect
of concern following subchronic or chronic oral exposures to
metaflumizone. Splenic extramedullary hematopoiesis, increased
hemosiderin, and anemia were the most common hematotoxic effects
reported after repeated oral dosing with metaflumizone. Chronic oral
(gavage) exposures to dogs resulted in slight decreases in mean
corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and total hemoglobin, leading to
increased plasma bilirubin, increased urinary urobilinogen, and
increased hemosiderin in the liver. In a chronic toxicity/
carcinogenicity study in mice, anemia was observed in the form of
increased hemosiderin in the spleen, increased mean absolute
reticulocyte count, decreased mean corpuscular volume, and mean
corpuscular hemoglobin.
    The postulated pesticidal mode of action of metaflumizone involves
inhibition of sodium channels in target insect species; however, in
mammals (rats), there were only clinical signs of neurotoxicity (i.e.,
piloerection and body temperature variations) with no neuropathology in
the presence of systemic toxicity (e.g., recumbency and poor general
state) following acute or repeated exposures. Similarly, several immune
system organs seem to be affected following metaflumizone
administration via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes (e.g., the
presence of macrophages in the thymus, lymphocyte necrosis in the
mesenteric lymph nodes, and diffuse atrophy of the mandibular);
however, there was no evidence of any functional deficits at the
highest dose tested in a recently submitted and reviewed guideline
immunotoxicity study. Therefore, the clinical neurotoxicity signs and
the effects on the immune system organs following metaflumizone
administration are likely to be secondary to the hematotoxic effects.
    Metaflumizone induced an increased incidence of a missing
subclavian artery at a relatively high dose that also caused severe
maternal toxicity (e.g., late term abortions) in the developmental
toxicity study in rabbits. There was no evidence (quantitative or
qualitative) of increased susceptibility following in utero exposures
to rats or rabbit and following pre- and post natal exposures. There
was no evidence that metaflumizone is genotoxic and carcinogenicity
studies with mice and rabbits were negative.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by metaflumizone as well as the no observed
adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Metaflumizone: Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Tolerances in/on Imported Tomato, Pepper, and Eggplant''
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0258.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOCs) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for metaflumizone used for
human risk assessment is provided below:
    i. Acute dietary endpoint (general population including infants and
children). An acute dietary endpoint was not established for this
population group since an endpoint of concern (effect) attributable to
a single dose was not identified in the database. Studies considered
for this endpoint included the acute neurotoxicity study for which no
toxicity was observed at any dose including the highest dose tested:
The limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day).
    ii. Acute dietary endpoint (females 13-49 years old). This endpoint
was established based on a developmental effect observed in the rabbit
developmental toxicity study that can be potentially due to a single
dose of metaflumizone. This effect consisted of an increased incidence
of an absent subclavian artery in the offspring at the LOAEL of 300 mg/
kg bw/day metaflumizone (NOAEL = 100 mg/kg bw/day). The rat
developmental toxicity study was also considered for this endpoint;
however, no developmental effects were observed in this study at the
highest dose tested of 120 mg/kg bw/day metaflumizone. A combined
uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 was applied to account for interspecies
(10x) and intraspecies (10x) extrapolation. A Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF) of 3x was retained because the rabbit
developmental toxicity study was performed via oral gavage dosing. In
an absorption study submitted by the petitioner, dietary exposures
(which are more relevant for human exposures) exhibited an
approximately 2-fold greater absorption into the systemic circulation
than oral gavage dosing and, thus, can potentially lead to toxicity at
2-fold lower levels of exposure. Thus, the acute population adjusted
dose (aPAD) for females 13-49 years old is estimated to be 0.33 mg/kg
bw/day.
    iii. Chronic dietary endpoint. This endpoint was established based
on the systemic toxicity observed in the chronic toxicity study with
dogs. At the LOAEL of 30 mg/kg bw/day (NOAEL =

12 mg/kg bw/day), the effects consisted of reduced general health
condition, slight to severe ataxia, recumbency, and severe salivation,
slight decreases in mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration and total
hemoglobin, increased plasma bilirubin, increased urinary urobilinogen,
and increased hemosiderin in the liver. A combined UF of 300 was
applied to account for interspecies (10x) and intraspecies (10x)
extrapolation and an FQPA safety factor of 3x. The FQPA safety factor
of 3x was retained because the chronic toxicity study was performed via
capsule dosing, which is a bolus dose very similar to gavage dosing
(this accounts for the 2-fold greater absorption observed in dietary
versus oral gavage exposures, as described in Unit III.B.ii.). Thus,
the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is estimated to be 0.040
mg/kg bw/day.
    iv. Incidental oral (short- and intermediate-term). This endpoint
was selected on the basis of the maternal effects observed in the rat
2-generation reproductive toxicity study at the LOAEL of 50 mg/kg bw/
day metaflumizone (NOAEL = 20 mg/kg bw/day). Maternal toxicity
consisted of poor general health and body weight deficits which were
also associated with improper nursing behavior. Similar effects were
also noted in a developmental neurotoxicity study (gavage, range
finding) also considered for this endpoint. In this study, poor
maternal health was also observed at the LOAEL of 120 mg/kg bw/day
metaflumizone (NOAEL = 80 mg/kg bw/day). Both studies considered for
this endpoint achieved a clear maternal NOAEL for the offspring
effects, but the NOAEL of 20 mg/kg bw/day for the 2-generation
reproductive toxicity study is considered more protective. The Agency's
LOC for this scenario is 300 based on a 10x intraspecies factor, a 10x
interspecies factor, and an FQPA safety factor of 3x (to account for
the 2-fold greater absorption observed in dietary versus oral gavage
exposures, as described in Unit III.B.ii.).
    v. Dermal (short- and intermediate-term). This endpoint was based
on a rat 90-day dermal toxicity study in which deficits in body weight,
body-weight gain and food consumption (in males and females);
anogenital smearing; increased macrophages in the thymus; lymphocyte
necrosis in the mesenteric lymph nodes; diffuse atrophy of the
mandibular lymph node; and increased hemosiderin in the liver (females
only) were observed at the LOAEL of 300 mg/kg bw/day (NOAEL = 100 mg/kg
bw/day). The Agency's LOC for this scenario is 100 based on a 10x
interspecies factor and a 10x intraspecies factor.
    vi. Inhalation (short- and intermediate-term). There is a 28-day
inhalation study that is adequate for both exposure durations. There
was no NOAEL identified for female rats. At the LOAEL of 0.10 mg/L
metaflumizone (NOAEL = 0.03 mg/L), histopathology of the nasal tissues,
lungs, thymus, prostate, and adrenal cortex was observed in males. The
LOAEL identified in females resulted in lymphocyte necrosis in the
mesenteric lymph node.
    The methods and dosimetry equations described in EPA's reference
concentration (RfC) guidance (1994) are suited for calculating human-
equivalent concentrations (HECs) based on the inhalation toxicity point
of departure (NOAEL, LOAEL) for use in MOE calculations. The regional-
deposited-dose ratio (RDDR), which accounts for the particulate
diameter (mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) and geometric
standard deviation [[sigma]g] of aerosols), can be used to
estimate the different dose fractions deposited along the respiratory
tract. The RDDR accounts for interspecies differences in ventilation
and respiratory-tract surface areas. Thus, the RDDR can be used to
adjust an observed inhalation particulate exposure of an animal to the
predicted inhalation exposure for a human. For the subchronic
inhalation toxicity study with metaflumizone, an RDDR was estimated at
2.81 based on systemic effects (lymphocyte necrosis in the mesenteric
lymph node) in females at the LOAEL of 0.03 mg/L (no NOAEL established)
and a MMAD of 1.7[mu]m and [sigma]g of 2.7.
    For this action with metaflumizone, only residential handler
scenarios are being assessed for which 2-hr/day inhalation exposures
are assumed. Adjustment to shorter exposure scenarios relative to the
animal toxicity study duration (e.g., 2 hr residential exposures)
should only be made if there is time-course information that would
support a shorter time-frame. Since there is no such information
available for metaflumizone, the unadjusted animal POD was used for HEC
estimation. The HEC equals the product of the LOAEL from the study and
the RDDR or 0.084 mg/L. The FQPA SF of 10x is being retained for lack
of a NOAEL for females in the study. The standard interspecies
extrapolation UF can be reduced from 10x to 3x due to the HEC
calculation accounting for interspecies differences in pharmacokinetics
(not pharmacodynamic). The intraspecies UF remains at 10x. Therefore,
the LOC for this scenario is 300, which includes the FQPA SF of 10x,
interspecies (3x), and intraspecies (10x) extrapolation.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to metaflumizone, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing metaflumizone
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.657. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
metaflumizone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for metaflumizone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was
conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed
tolerance-level residues. It was further assumed that 100% of crops
with the requested uses of metaflumizone were treated.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues. It was further assumed that 100% of crops with the requested
uses of metaflumizone were treated.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that metaflumizone does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for metaflumizone. Tolerance level residues and/or 100% crop
treated (CT) were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for metaflumizone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of metaflumizone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
metaflumizone for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.14 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.00214 ppb for ground water. The
EDWCs of metaflumizone for chronic exposures for non-cancer chronic
assessments are estimated to be 0.597 ppb for surface water and 0.00214
ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 1.14 ppb was used to
assess the contribution of drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.597 ppb was used to
assess the contribution of drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Metaflumizone is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: As a fire ant bait for application to lawns,
landscapes, golf courses, and other non-cropland area; and as a fly
bait for use around industrial buildings, commercial facilities,
agricultural structures/premises, and recreational facilities/areas.
    EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Fire ant bait applications to home lawns are expected to result in
short-term, residential handler exposure to adults. Fire ant bait
applications to lawns and golf-courses are expected to result in short-
term, post-application dermal exposure to adults, children 11 to <16
years old, and children 1 to <2 years old, and incident oral exposure
for children 1 to <2 years old. For the fly bait product, residential
handler exposure is not expected, because the product is applied by
commercial handlers. The fly bait product is expected to result in
short-term, post-application dermal exposure to adults, children 11 to
<16 years old, and children 1 to <2 years old, and incident oral
exposure for children 1 to <2 years old.
    For residential handlers, dermal and inhalation exposures are
combined since the endpoints are similar for these routes. For children
(1- to <2-year-olds), post-application hand-to-mouth and dermal
exposures are combined. Since the LOCs for the dermal, inhalation and
incidental oral routes are not the same (dermal LOC = 100, inhalation
LOC = 300, and incidental oral LOC = 300), these routes were combined
using the aggregate risk index approach. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures
may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found metaflumizone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and metaflumizone does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
metaflumizone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10x, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence for
increased qualitative or quantitative sensitivity/susceptibility
resulting from pre- and/or postnatal exposures. In the rat prenatal
development toxicity study, there was no offspring toxicity reported at
any dose tested whereas in the rabbit study a maltransformation based
on an absent subclavian artery was noted to occur only in the presence
of severe maternal toxicity. Similarly, offspring mortality in the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity occurred only in the presence of a
poor maternal health state. Thus, there is no evidence for increased
susceptibility.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced from 10x to 3x for all oral exposure scenarios;
retained at 10x for inhalation exposure scenarios; and reduced to 1x
for dermal exposures. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for metaflumizone is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that metaflumizone directly affects the
nervous system. Clinical signs consisting of piloerection and body
temperature variations were observed only in the absence of
neuropathology and in the presence of a poor general state. There is no
need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty
factors to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that metaflumizone results in increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and
rabbits or in developing rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases.
    The dietary analyses assumed tolerance-level residues, 100% CT, and
modeled drinking water estimates. Therefore, EPA concludes that while
the submission of data/information by the petitioner addressing the
residue chemistry deficiencies identified in a previous petition may
conceivably result in adjustment of the maximum theoretical residue
estimate, actual metaflumizone dietary exposure estimates will not be
greater than those generated in the current risk assessment. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to metaflumizone in drinking water.
EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by metaflumizone.
    v. Dietary exposures (which are more relevant for human exposures)
exhibited an approximately 2-fold greater absorption into the systemic
circulation as compared to oral gavage and, thus,

can potentially lead to toxicity at 2-fold lower levels of exposure.
Applying a FQPA SF of 3x for all oral exposure scenarios is adequate to
protect against any greater toxicity that might occur in dietary
exposures (absorption was noted to be 2-fold greater in dietary versus
oral gavage studies).
    vi. The FQPA SF of 10x is being retained for inhalation exposure
scenarios for the use of a LOAEL instead of a NOAEL (no NOAEL achieved)
for histopathological lesions consisting of lymphocyte necrosis in the
mesenteric lymph node. The FQPA SF of 10x is adequate because the
effect (lymphocyte necrosis) is considered minimal to slight and does
not exhibit a strong dose dependence.
    vii. The FQPA SF for dermal exposure scenarios is being reduced
from 10x to 1x since there is a route-specific study with a clear
NOAEL.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to metaflumizone will occupy 1.6% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years
old.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
metaflumizone from food and water will utilize 5.8% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
metaflumizone is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Metaflumizone
is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to metaflumizone. Since the LOC and
toxicological points of departure for the short-term dermal and oral
routes of exposure differ, the aggregate risk index method was used to
determine aggregate risk (aggregate risk indices >1 are not a risk of
concern).
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate risk indices of 43 for
the general population, and 27 for children 1-2 years old. Because
EPA's LOC for metaflumizone is an aggregate risk index less than 1, the
aggregate risks are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Metaflumizone is currently registered for uses that could
result in intermediate-term residential exposure; however, since the
PODs for the short- and intermediate-term durations are the same for
metaflumizone, the short-term aggregate assessment is protective of
intermediate-term exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, metaflumizone is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to metaflumizone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatograph/mass
spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC/MS/MS) Method 531/0) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established an MRL for metaflumizone in or on tomato
at 0.6 ppm. This MRL is the same as the tolerance established for
metaflumizone in or on tomato in the United States. The Codex has
established MRLs for metaflumizone in or on eggplant at 0.6 ppm and
pepper at 0.6 ppm. These MRLs are different than the tolerances
established for metaflumizone in the United States.
    The currently established Codex MRLs are based on the 2009 Joint
Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO)
Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) metaflumizone report, and this
report was utilized in the Agency's residue chemistry review. The
difference in the United States tolerances and the Codex MRLs is thus
due to the following issues:
    i. The United States metaflumizone tolerance expression for crops
includes metaflumizone (E and Z isomers) and the metabolite M320I04.
The Codex MRL expression differs in that it does not include M320I04.
The Agency determined that M320I04 should be included as a residue of
concern for risk assessment and tolerance enforcement purposes as it is
identified at significant concentrations in the submitted metabolism
study and is the primary residue in some processed commodities.
    ii. Harmonization with the Codex MRLs for pepper and eggplant is
not appropriate because the U.S. residue data for pepper (and eggplant
by translation) indicate maximum residues of in excess of 0.6 ppm. The
1.5 ppm tolerances for both pepper and eggplant are based on the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
tolerance-calculation procedure. The current Codex MRLs were
established using the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
tolerance-calculation procedure which allowed the establishment of
tolerances less than the

highest residues; the OECD tolerance-calculation procedure does not
permit this.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    For pepper and eggplant, the available data indicate that residues
may be greater than the proposed 0.6 ppm tolerance. Using the OECD
tolerance-calculation procedure, EPA determined that a tolerance of 1.5
ppm is appropriate for both pepper and eggplant. Based on the highest-
average field-trial residue and an average tomato paste processing
factor of 2.94x, the Agency concluded that a tomato, paste tolerance of
1.2 ppm should be established.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
metaflumizone, (E and Z isomers; 2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]
hydrazinecarboxamide) and its metabolite 4-{2-oxo-2-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethyl{time} -benzonitrile, in or on eggplant at
1.5 ppm; pepper at 1.5 ppm; tomato at 0.60 ppm; and tomato, paste at
1.2 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 28, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.657:
0
a. Add alphabetically the commodities to the table in paragraph (a).
0
b. Add footnote 1 to the table in paragraph (a).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.657  Metaflumizone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Eggplant \1\...............................................          1.5

                                * * * * *
Pepper \1\.................................................          1.5
Tomato \1\.................................................         0.60
Tomato, paste \1\..........................................          1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations as of April 4, 2014.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-07559 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 63916]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-551-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on September 29, 2011, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco), P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396,
filed in Docket No. CP11-551-000 an application pursuant to Section
7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations for permission and approval to abandon Caverns
1, 2, 3, and 4 and the associated storage deliverability and capacity
at the Eminence Storage Field (Eminence) in Covington County,
Mississippi, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing
may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Transco states that it has experienced structural integrity
problems with four of its seven caverns at Eminence. On December 26,
2010, a large, unexpected pressure drop occurred in Cavern 3.
Subsequently, Transco experienced problems with Caverns 1 and 2 and
began to reduce the pressure in those caverns by withdrawing gas.
Cavern 4 has been out of service since 2004 due to collapsed casing
which is not connected to the December incident. Transco seeks
permission and approval to abandon Caverns 1, 2, 3, and 4, and reduce
deliverability and capacity from 20.5 Bcf to 15.025 Bcf in Caverns 5,
6, and 7. Transco also seeks to partially abandon the total storage
capacity and deliverability quantities Transco provides to its
customers under Rate Schedules ESS and EESWS. Transco further seeks to
reduce the total capacity and deliverability quantities available to
Transco for system flexibility. Contingent upon receiving approval of
its request from the Commission, Transco and its Rate Schedules ESS and
EESWS customers would amend their applicable service agreements to
reflect their revised Storage Capacity Quantity and the Storage Demand
Capacity. Transco states that it intends to reflect the rate impact of
the reduction in at the Eminence Storage Field's deliverability and
capacity, as well as any costs incurred thus far, in Transco's next
section 4 general rate case which will be filed no later than August
31, 2012. Transco estimates that it has already expended $76,000,000 as
part of its emergency response to the events at Eminence.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Ingrid Germany, Staff Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, P.O. Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, at (713) 215-
4015.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
157.9, within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission's staff will
either complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission's staff issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to reach a final decision on a request
for federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    Comment Date: October 27, 2011.

    Dated: October 6, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26573 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR)

OMB 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Identification of the Information Collection a) Title: Request for Information on Existing and Available Stocks of Methyl Bromide EPA Number: 2157.01 b) Short Characterization:

This is an emergency, one time request to collect data.

With this Information Collection Request ( ICR), the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) is seeking permission to solicit data from regulated industries on amounts of methyl bromide, an ozone depleting chemical, held in inventories. OAR is requesting this data in order to establish company level baselines of methyl bromide stocks and to subsequently issue allowances that would permit the company to sell such stocks to critical uses of methyl bromide. This data is required so that OAR may finalize allowance allocations to companies in a notice and comment rulemaking creating the critical use exemption. Without this data, companies that hold methyl bromide will not be allowed to sell their inventory to critical uses and farmers who have critical uses may face a shortage of supplies as a result. The critical use exemption is allowed under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ( Protocol) and the Clean Air Act.

2. Need For, and Use Of, the Collection a) Authority for the Collection This information collection is authorized under section 114 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which allows the Agency to collect data needed to implement the statute. Further, this collection which is needed to implement the critical use exemption is authorized under section 604 ( d)( 6) of the Act added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( Public Law No. 105 277; October 21, 1998) which created the critical use exemption.

b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 2 The reported data will enable EPA to:

1) Establish baselines for companies so that they may receive allowances to sell existing stocks of methyl bromide to critical uses. 2) Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with Section 604( d)( 6) as amended in 1998; 3) Maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements which compel the U. S. to manage stocks under the critical use exemption.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria a) Nonduplication All the information requested from respondents under this ICR is authorized by statute ( CAA Section 114 and 604 ( d)( 6)) and is not available from other sources because it is proprietary or sensitive information.

b) Public Notice This is an emergency ICR. EPA will provide public notice and comment regarding this ICR concurrent to publication of the section 114 notice soliciting the data.

c) Consultations EPA has held several consultations, in the form of stakeholder meetings, on the options for the proposed rulemaking as well as the options for reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Copies of transcripts from two of the six sessions held during the summer of 2003 are available at EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone. EPA anticipates receiving comments from stakeholders through the notice and comment process as well.

d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This is a one time collection of data.

e) General Guidelines This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines f) Confidentiality EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart b, and will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential 3 treatment. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to the respondents ( 40 CFR 2.203).

g) Sensitive Information Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance with procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents producers, importers, distributors, and custom applicators of methyl bromide. The appropriate North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for these entities are: 4 TABLE I: NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED ENTITIES Category NAICS code SIC code Distributors and Applicators Producers and Importers 115112 Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 325310 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 0721 Crop Planting, Cultivation, and Protection 2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC b) Information Requested i) Data Items EPA has proposed to require the following information to be provided to the Agency ( A) Reporting · Producers, importers, Distributors, fumigators and applicators · One time: kilograms methyl bromide held for themselves or for third parties as of date of December 31, 2003 · One time: kilograms methyl bromide held for themselves or for third parties as of date of notice · One time: kilograms methyl bromide held for themselves or for third parties that are restricted for quarantine and preshipment uses or for developing countries as of December 31, 2003 · One time: kilograms methyl bromide held for themselves or for third parties that are restricted for quarantine and preshipment uses or for developing countries as of date of notice ( B) Recordkeeping · None 5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5 a) Agency Activities · All reported data will be reviewed by EPA.

· EPA will use data to calculate baselines and apportion allowances to each baseline entity.

· The data will then be stored.

b) Collection and Methodology and Management Data will be collected by industry and reported to EPA in the form of a letter. Information claimed as confidential business information will be stored in appropriately controlled areas.

c) Small Entity Flexibility This ICR is related to the collection of information for an exemption program that will confer a benefit to the respondents in the form of tradable allowances.

d) Collection Schedule The information is to be submitted on a one time basis within 20 working days of publication of the section 114 notice in the Federal Register.

6) Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection a) Estimating the Burden EPA drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities in order to derive estimates of the burden associated with this one time reporting activity.

b) Estimating the Respondent Cost To determine respondent costs, EPA used an hourly industry wage rate of $ 80 per hour. Some activities, such as rule familiarization, are in fact one time activities therefore total respondent burden hours indicated in Table II ( below) may be overestimated.

TABLE II RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS ( One time) Collection Activity No. of respondents Total no. of responses Hours per response Total hours Report Inventory Data ( one time) 54 54 2.5 135 6 Total Burden Hours 2.5 135 TABLE III CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Activity No of Entities Affected Estimated Annual Cost per entity Total Estimated Annual Cost None c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The basis of this analysis is the identification of the steps involved in distributing critical use allowances, reviewing reporting data, submitting data to the Ozone Secretariat on U. S. compliance, and developing guidance for regulated entities. Each hour of extramural ( contractor) time is valued at $ 80.00 per hour including overhead and fringe. Each hour of Agency time is valued using the 2003 OPM annual base pay table divided by 2,080 to estimate the hourly wage and then multiplied by 1.6, the standard government benefits multiplier. The hourly wage rates are as flows: for EPA managerial staff the rate is $ 65.49, for technical staff ( GS 13 level) the value is $ 47.12, and for clerical staff ( GS 5 level) is $ 18.03. The data in table IV reflects total annual Agency effort.

TABLE IV AGENCY BURDEN HOURS Hours per Response No. of Responses Managerial Hours per Response Technical Hours per Response Clerical Hours per Response Extramural Hours per Response Total Agency Hours/ year Receive data 54 0 0 .25 0 13.5 Determine historic baseline 54 .5 1 0 0 24 Distribute allowances 54 1 5 0 4 40 Store data 54 0 .25 0 0 13.5 TOTAL 1.5 6.25 .25 4 91 d) Estimating the Respondent Universe EPA was able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same entities, except for end users of methyl bromide, as we do under the phaseout program. EPA believes that there are 4 producers and importers of methyl bromide who report quarterly and up to 50 distributors/ applicators of methyl bromide who report annually. 7 e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables i) The burden hours portion of the respondent reporting burden and operating/ capital costs are estimated in Tables II and III respectively. The dollar estimate associated with this burden is displayed in Table V below.

TABLE V RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Response No of Responses Hours/ Response Cost/ Hour Total Cost Reporting 54 2.5 $ 80 $ 10,800 Total $ 10,800 ii) Agency burden is reported in Table IV. The dollar value associated with this burden is displayed below in Table VI.

TABLE VI ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Managerial Hours Annual Total @ $ 65.49 Technical Hours Annual Total @ $ 47.12 Clerical Hours Annual Total @ $ 18.03 Extramural Hours Annual Total $ 80.00 Total Agency Hours per Year Total Agency Costs per Year Hours/ Response 81 337.5 13.5 216 648 $ 38,731 f) Reasons for Change in Burden Require data to establish baselines for a new exemption program.

g) Burden Statement Table II presents the average annual respondent burden. For respondents affected by the methyl bromide critical use exemption, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is as follows: 4 producers and importers at a total of 10 hours per year for this group of entities and; 50 distributors and applicators at 125 hours per year. The total industry burden hours for this one time effort are therefore 135. 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; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 8 the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Electronic Docket ID number OAR 2003 0230. Submit any comments related to the rule ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See " Addresses' section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street NW, Washington D. C. 20503 attn: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number ( 2157.01) in correspondence related to this ICR.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15973-15974]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 10905A/March 19, 2021; Release No. 90693A/March 19, 2021]

Securities Act of 1933; Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
Amendment To Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Budget and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year 2021

    On December 16, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') issued an Order (the ``Order'') approving the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB'') budget and annual
accounting support fee for calendar year 2021,\1\ pursuant to Section
109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the ``Sarbanes-Oxley
Act'').\2\ That Order stated, among other things, that the PCAOB should
submit its 2020 annual report (``2020 Annual Report'') to the
Commission by March 31, 2021. The PCAOB has informed the Commission
staff that, due to a change in auditors in January 2021, the 2020
Annual Report, including the audit report, may not be completed by
March 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board Budget and Annual Accounting Support Fee for Calendar Year
2021, Release No. 33-10905 (Dec. 16, 2020) [85 FR 83642 (Dec. 22,
2020)].
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is amending the Order to permit the PCAOB to submit
its 2020 Annual Report to the Commission by April 30, 2021.
    Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 109 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
that the PCAOB should submit its 2020 Annual Report to the Commission
by April 30, 2021.

    By the Commission.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06137 Filed 3-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 54561-54562]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP09-844-000 and RP09-844-001]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request for Permission To
Withdraw Tariff Filing

October 15, 2009.
    Take notice that on October 9, 2009, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas) filed to request for authority from the Commission to
withdraw the proposed tariff sheets filed in the above-captioned
dockets, without prejudice to Texas Gas re-filing at a later time.
Texas Gas contends that no party will be harmed by the Commission
permitting Texas Gas to withdraw its filings as the proposed tariff
changes have not yet taken effect. Texas Gas also requests the
authority to file the information required by the Commission in its
order accepting and suspending the tariff filings, subject to
conditions \1\ in upcoming certificate proceedings during the next six
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 128 FERC ] 61,220 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 85.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such
protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the comment
date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of
that document on the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To
facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will
eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must
create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration
link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filing in the above proceeding is accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket. For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 23, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25398 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1 INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR) OMB 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION A. JUSTIFICATION 1. Identification of the Information Collection a) Title: Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, Recycling, Transshipment and Feedstock Use of Ozone Depleting Substances ( Proposed Rule Amendment for the Critical Use Exemption)

EPA Number: 2179.03 b) Short Characterization:

With this Information Collection Request ( ICR), the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) is seeking permission to require the submission of data from regulated industries to the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). EPA is amending the recently published critical use exemption ( CUE) rule ( 69 FR 76982) to add additional uses of methyl bromide and to allow issue additional allowances that permit the sale of methyl bromide to critical users. The burden associated with the aforementioned proposed action is included in ICR # 2179.02 pending renewal before OMB currently. EPA is further proposing to amend the reporting requirements of the exemption to require all entities that have amounts of methyl bromide produced or imported prior to January 1, 2005 for sale or for transfer, report to EPA on an annual basis how much methyl bromide they own. Today's ICR submission is related to the burden associated with the collection of this data element. EPA currently has emergency approval to collect this data under ICR # 2179.01. Entities applied to EPA for a critical use exemption that would allow for the continued production and import of methyl bromide after the phaseout in January 2005. EPA used the data submitted by users of methyl bromide to create a nomination of critical uses that was submitted to the Montreal Protocol's Ozone Secretariat for review by an international panel of experts. The uses authorized internationally by the Parties to the Protocol have been made available in the U. S. through a regulatory action completed by EPA on December 23, 2004.

2. Need For, and Use Of, the Collection a) Authority for the Collection 2 This information collection is authorized under section 604 ( d)( 6) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, added by Section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( Public Law No. 105 277; October 21, 1998).

b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The reported data will enable EPA to:

1) Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with Section 604( d)( 6) as amended in 1998; 2) Maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production of ozone depleting substances; 3) Analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used in accordance with requirements included in today's proposed rulemaking.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria a) Nonduplication All the information requested from respondents under this ICR is authorized by statute ( CAA Section 114 and 604 ( d)( 6)) and is not available from other sources because it is proprietary or sensitive information.

b) Public Notice EPA will provide public notice and comment regarding this ICR with the publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. The proposed rule is being submitted to the Federal Register concurrent with submission of today's ICR request to OMB.

c) Consultations EPA has held several consultations, in the form of stakeholder meetings, on the options for the proposed rulemaking as well as the options for reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Copies of transcripts from two of the six sessions held during the summer of 2003 are available at EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone. In addition, EPA has had several conversations with regulated entities to inform them of this proposed requirement.

d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The U. S. government is required to report data to the Ozone Secretariat on an annual basis. EPA is requesting annual reporting from regulated entities.

e) General Guidelines 3 This rule does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines f) Confidentiality EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2, subpart b, and will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment. If no claim of confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public without further notice to the respondents ( 40 CFR 2.203).

g) Sensitive Information Individual reporting data may be claimed as sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance with procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 2.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents: producers, importers, distributors, and custom applicators of methyl bromide. The appropriate North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for these entities are:

TABLE I: NAICS CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATED ENTITIES Category NAICS code SIC code Distributors and Applicators Producers and Importers 115112 Soil Preparation, Planting and Cultivating 424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 325310 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 0721 Crop Planting, Cultivation, and Protection 2879 Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals, NEC b) Information Requested i) Data Items EPA is requesting that entities provide the following information to the Agency: 4 · Producers and importers · Annually: the total amount of methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves and the amounts held for them by another entity, excluding amounts sold to end users ( in kilograms) that was produced/ imported prior to January 1, 2005 on hand;

· Distributors · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves the amounts held for them by another entity, excluding amounts sold to end users ( in kilograms) that was produced/ imported prior to January 1, 2005 on hand;

· Fumigators and applicators · Annually: the total amount and type of methyl bromide held in inventory for themselves the amounts held for them by another entity, excluding amounts sold to end users ( in kilograms) that was produced/ imported prior to January 1, 2005 on hand.

( B) Recordkeeping · None 5. The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management a) Agency Activities · All reported data will be reviewed by EPA.

· EPA will ensure that compliance has been maintained with U. S. production and consumption levels of exempted material at the national and sector levels.

· EPA will report annually to the Ozone Secretariat, through the U. S. Department of State, on U. S. compliance with allowable production and consumption levels.

· EPA will adjust future amounts of exempted materials requested based on actual use data and levels of material in inventory.

· The data will then be stored.

b) Collection and Methodology and Management Data will be tracked by industry and will be provided to EPA on a quarterly and/ or annual basis on forms to be provided by the 5 Agency on EPA's website ( forms will be available pending approval of emergency ICR). EPA will use our electronic tracking system to update company specific and overall U. S. compliance with production, consumption, and use. Confidential business information will be stored in appropriately controlled areas.

c) Small Entity Flexibility The information collection is authorized by statute under section 604 of the Clean Air Act and is required in order to ensure U. S. compliance with international treaty obligations under the Montreal Protocol. Bearing in mind U. S. obligations, EPA designed a system that would remove almost all burden from the end users of methyl bromide, some of whom are small entities, and placed it instead on chemical manufacturers, distributors and applicators, who are not small entities. This ICR is related to the collection of information for an exemption program. Participation in this system is therefore voluntary and constitutes a benefit. However, in order to minimize the administrative burden on end users of methyl bromide participating in this system, some of whom may be small entities, EPA created a regulatory framework that places minimal burden on these entities. EPA created a system that requires end users to sign a short form ( 1 2 pages in length) certifying that they are buying the exempted material for an allowable use and will use it accordingly. The form would be kept by the supplier, not the end user.

d) Collection Schedule The information is to be submitted on an annual basis ( see section 5 a) to EPA beginning in the first quarter of 2005 and continuing for the life of the exemption.

6) Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection a) Estimating the Burden The basis of the analysis is the identification of the steps involved in understanding and complying with the new requirements. EPA drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities in order to derive estimates of the burden associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

b) Estimating the Respondent Cost To determine respondent costs, EPA used an hourly industry wage rate of $ 80 per hour. Some activities, such as rule familiarization, are in fact one time activities therefore total respondent burden hours indicated in Table II ( below) may be overestimated. 6 TABLE II RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS PER YEAR Collection Activity No. of Respondents Total No. of Responses Hours per Response Total Hours Rule Familiarization 54 54 .5 27 Data Compilation ( annual basis) 54 54 .5 27 Data Reporting ( annual basis) 54 54 .5 27 Total Burden Hours  162  81 There are no capital and operating costs associated this action.

TABLE III CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Activity No of Entities Affected Estimated Annual Cost per entity Total Estimated Annual Cost TOTAL CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS 0 0 0 c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The basis of this analysis is the identification of the steps involved in reviewing reporting data, submitting data to the Ozone Secretariat on U. S. compliance, and developing guidance for regulated entities. Each hour of extramural ( contractor) time is valued at $ 80.00 per hour including overhead and fringe. Each hour of Agency time is valued using the 2003 OPM annual base pay table divided by 2,080 to estimate the hourly wage and then multiplied by 1.6, the standard government benefits multiplier. The hourly wage rates are as flows: for EPA managerial staff the rate is $ 65.49, for technical staff ( GS 13 level) the value is $ 47.12, and for clerical staff ( GS 5 level) is $ 18.03. The data in table IV reflects total annual Agency effort.

TABLE IV AGENCY BURDEN HOURS Hours per Response No. of Responses Managerial Hours per Response Technical Hours per Response Clerical Hours per Response Extramural Hours per Response Total Agency Hours/ Year Process annual reports 54 .5 1.5 0 1 108 Provide 30 0 1 0 0 30 7 Guidance Report to the Ozone Secretariat 1 0 10 0 10 20 TOTAL .5 12.5 0 11 158 d) Estimating the Respondent Universe EPA was able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same entities, except for end users of methyl bromide, as we do under the phaseout program. EPA believes that there are 4 producers and importers of methyl bromide who report quarterly and up to 50 distributors/ applicators of methyl bromide who report annually.

e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables i) The burden hour portion of the respondent reporting burden and operating/ capital costs are estimated in Tables II and III respectively. The dollar estimate associated with this burden is displayed in Table V below.

TABLE V RESPONDENT BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Response No of Responses Hours/ Response Cost/ Hour Total Cost Reporting 54 1.5 $ 80 $ 6,480 Total $ 6,480 ii) Agency burden is reported in Table IV. The dollar value associated with this burden is displayed below in Table VI.

TABLE VI ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS Managerial Hours Annual Total @ $ 65.49 Technical Hours Annual Total @ $ 47.12 Clerical Hours Annual Total @ $ 18.03 Extramural Hours Annual Total $ 80.00 Total Agency Hours per Year Total Agency Costs per Year Hours 27 121 0 64 202 $ 2,843.67 f) Reasons for Change in Burden Amending current regulations to create exemption program.

g) Burden Statement 8 Table II presents the average annual respondent burden. For respondents affected by the methyl bromide critical use exemption, the annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is as follows: 4 producers and importers at a total of 6 hours per year for this group of entities and; 50 distributors and applicators at 75 hours per year. The total industry burden hours per year are therefore 81 hours under the proposed amendment to the CUE rule. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response ( 81 hours divided by 162 responses). 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; 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0506 which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 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 ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. 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 Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0506 and OMB Control Number 2060 0564 in any correspondence.