[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80269-80275]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32328]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685; FRL-9940-01]

Propiconazole on Tea; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
propiconazole in or on tea. The Tea Association of the U.S.A., Inc.
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 24, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2016,
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-2015-0685, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main 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-2015-0685 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
February 22, 2016. 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-2015-0685, 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.html.
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 October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-
9935-29), 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
4E8300) by the Tea Association of the U.S.A., Inc., 362 5th Avenue,
Suite 801, New York, New York, 10001. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.434 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide propiconazole in or on tea at 4.0 parts per million (ppm).
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Tea
Association of the U.S.A., Inc., the registrant, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments concerning this
tolerance action were received.

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 propiconazole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with propiconazole
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.
    The primary target organ for propiconazole toxicity in animals is
the liver. Increased liver weights were seen in mice after subchronic
or chronic oral exposures to propiconazole. Liver lesions such as
vacuolation of hepatocytes, ballooned liver cells, foci of enlarged
hepatocytes, hypertrophy, and necrosis are characteristic of
propiconazole toxicity in rats and mice. Decreased body weight gain was
also seen in subchronic, chronic, developmental and reproductive
studies in animal studies. Dogs appeared to be more sensitive to the
localized toxicity of propiconazole as manifested by stomach
irritations at 6 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) and above.
    In rabbits, developmental toxicity occurred at a higher dose than
the maternally toxic dose, while in rats, developmental toxicity
occurred at lower doses than maternal toxic doses. Increased incidences
of rudimentary ribs occurred in rat and rabbit fetuses. Increased cleft
palate malformations were noted in two studies in rats. In one
published study in rats, developmental effects (malformations of the
lung and kidneys, incomplete ossification of the skull, caudal
vertebrae and digits, extra rib (14th rib), and missing sternbrae) were
reported at doses that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity occurred at a higher
dose than the parental toxic dose suggesting lower susceptibility of
the offspring to the toxic doses of propiconazole.
    The acute neurotoxicity study produced severe clinical signs of
toxicity (decreased activity, cold, pale, decreased motor activity,
etc.) in rats at the high dose of 300 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg).
Limited clinical signs (piloerection, diarrhea, tip toe gait) were
observed in the mid-dose animals (100 mg/kg), while no treatment
related signs were observed at 30 mg/kg. The current acute dietary
assessment for the general population is based on the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg from the acute neurotoxicity
study. A subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats did not produce
neurotoxic signs at the highest dose tested that was associated with
decreased body weight.
    Propiconazole was negative for mutagenicity in the in vitro BALB/
3T3 cell transformation assay, bacterial reverse mutation assay,
Chinese hamster bone marrow chromosomal aberration assay, unscheduled
DNA synthesis studies in human fibroblasts and primary rat hepatocytes,
mitotic gene conversion assay, and the dominant lethal assay in mice.
It caused proliferative changes in the rat liver with or without
pretreatment with an initiator, like phenobarbital, a known liver tumor
promoter. Liver enzyme induction studies with propiconazole in mice
demonstrated that propiconazole is a strong phenobarbital type inducer
of xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes. Hepatocellular proliferation
studies in mice suggest that propiconazole induces cell proliferation
followed by treatment-related hypertrophy in a manner similar to the
known hypertrophic agent phenobarbital.
    Propiconazole was carcinogenic to male mice but was not
carcinogenic to rats or to female mice. The Agency classified
propiconazole as a possible human carcinogen and recommended that, for
the purpose of risk characterization, the reference dose (RfD) approach
be used for quantification of human risk. Propiconazole is not
genotoxic and this fact, together with special mechanistic studies,
indicates that propiconazole is a threshold carcinogen. Propiconazole

produced liver tumors in male mice only at a high dose that was toxic
to the liver. At doses below the RfD, liver toxicity is not expected;
therefore, tumors are also not expected.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by propiconazole as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, ``Propiconazole
Human Health Risk Assessment for the New Use of Propiconazole on
Imported Tea'' at pp. 41-46 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685.

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 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 the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified.
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 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 propiconazole used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Propiconazole for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.3 mg/  Developmental Study--Rat MRID
 years of age).                    UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.              40425001
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.3 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 90 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 increased incidence of
                                                                               rudimentary ribs, un-ossified
                                                                               sternebrae, as well as increased
                                                                               incidence of shortened and absent
                                                                               renal papillae and increased
                                                                               cleft palate.
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.3 mg/  Acute neurotoxicity study Rat MRID
 including infants and children).  UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.              46604601
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.3 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 clinical signs of toxicity
                                                                               (piloerection in one male,
                                                                               diarrhea in one female, tip toe
                                                                               gait in 3 females).
Chronic dietary (Adult Males and   NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  Chronic RfD = 0.1    24-month carcinogenicity study on
 Females 50+ yrs).                 UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           CD-1 mice. MRID 00129918
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on non-
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 neoplastic liver effects
                                                                               (increased liver weight in males
                                                                               and increase in liver lesions:
                                                                               Masses/raised areas/swellings/
                                                                               nodular areas mainly).
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/day.  Residential LOC for  Acute Neurotoxicity Study--Rats
 30 days).                         UFA = 10x...........   MOE = 100.           MRID 46604601
                                   UFH = 10x...........  Occupational LOC     LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF= 1x.........   for MOE = 100.       clinical signs of toxicity
                                                                               (piloerection in one male,
                                                                               diarrhea in one female, tip toe
                                                                               gait in 3 females).
Incidental oral intermediate-term  NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  Residential LOC for  24 Month carcinogenicity Study--
 (1 to 6 months).                  UFA= 10x............   MOE = 100.           Mice MRID 00129918
                                   UFH= 10x............  Occupational LOC     LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on non-
                                   FQPA SF= 1x.........   for MOE = 100.       neoplastic liver effects
                                                                               (increased liver weight in males
                                                                               and increase in liver lesions:
                                                                               Masses/raised areas/swellings/
                                                                               nodular areas mainly).
Dermal Short Term (1-30 days)....  NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/day.  Residential LOC for  Acute Neurotoxicity Study--Rats
                                   UFA= 10x............   MOE = 100.           MRID 46604601
                                   UFH= 10x............  Occupational LOC     LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
                                                          for MOE = 100.       clinical signs of toxicity
                                                                               (piloerection in one male,
                                                                               diarrhea in one female, tip toe
                                                                               gait in 3 females).
Dermal Intermediate Term (1-6      NOAEL= 10 mg/kg/day.  Residential LOC for  24 Month carcinogenicity Study--
 months).                          UFA= 10x............   MOE = 100.           Mice MRID 00129918
                                   UFH= 10x............  Occupational LOC     LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on non-
                                                          for MOE = 100.       neoplastic liver effects
                                                                               (increased liver weight in males
                                                                               and increase in liver lesions:
                                                                               Masses/raised areas/swellings/
                                                                               nodular areas mainly).
Inhalation Short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL= 30 mg/kg/day.  Occupational LOC     Acute Neurotoxicity Study--Rats
 days).                            UFA = 10x...........   for MOE = 100.       MRID 46604601
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day based on
                                                                               clinical signs of toxicity
                                                                               (piloerection in one male,
                                                                               diarrhea in one female, tip toe
                                                                               gait in 3 females).
Inhalation Intermediate-Term (1    NOAEL = 10 mg/kg/day  Occupational LOC     24 Month carcinogenicity Study--
 to 6 months).                     UFA = 10x...........   for MOE = 100.       Mice MRID 00129918
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 50 mg/kg/day based on non-
                                                                               neoplastic liver effects
                                                                               (increased liver weight in males
                                                                               and increase in liver lesions:
                                                                               Masses/raised areas/swellings/
                                                                               nodular areas mainly).
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cancer (all routes--oral, dermal,    Classification: Group C, possible human carcinogen, RfD approach for risk
 inhalation).                                                     characterization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other
  data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to propiconazole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing propiconazole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.434. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
propiconazole 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 propiconazole. 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
conducted an acute dietary analysis for propiconazole residues of
concern using tolerance levels and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for
all existing and proposed uses.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA. This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted a chronic dietary analysis for
propiconazole residues of concern average field trial residues,
tolerance levels and 100 PCT for all existing and proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to propiconazole. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require
pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for propiconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of propiconazole. 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.
    The Agency does not expect any additional residues of propiconazole
in drinking water as a result of the imported tea use. Therefore, the
Agency is relying on the previous drinking water assessment for
assessing propiconazole tolerances. The previously assessed turf EDWCs
are approximately one order of magnitude higher and more protective
than the EDWCs for the new use.
    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) and
Pesticide Root Zone Model--Ground Water (PRZM-GW) models, the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of propiconazole for acute
exposures are estimated to be 35.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 37.9 ppb for ground water, and for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 18.6 ppb for surface water and 35.1 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 37.9 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 35.1 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to 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).
    Although there are no proposed residential uses associated with the
imported tea use, propiconazole is currently registered for the
following uses that could result in residential exposures: Turf,
landscapes, ornamentals, and in paint. The highest incidental oral and
dermal exposure scenarios are expected from residential use on turf.
EPA assessed short-term risk to toddlers from incidental oral and
dermal exposure as well as from post-application dermal exposure. The
highest post application exposure from residential use on turf was used
to assess risk to short-term aggregate exposures.
    The only residential use scenario that will result in potential
intermediate-term exposure to propiconazole is wood treatment, which
the Agency assumes may result in dermal and incidental oral post-
application exposures to children. 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.''

    Propiconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by
inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish chemicals
operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major
biochemical events (EPA, 2002). In conazoles, however, a variable
pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse rand of
biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes.
    Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that conazoles
share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is not following a
cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for
the conazoles. 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.
    Propiconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for
triazole-derivative pesticides, including propiconazole, EPA conducted
a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole,
triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of
all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide. The
risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in
terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (e.g., use of a
maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and potential dietary and
non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates of both dietary and
non-dietary exposures). The Agency retained a 3X for the LOAEL to NOAEL
safety factor when the reproduction study was used. In addition, the
Agency retained a 10X for the lack of studies including a DNT. The
assessment includes evaluations of risks for various subgroups,
including those comprised of infants and children. The Agency's
complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole reregistration
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-
0497.
    An updated aggregate human health risk assessment for the common
triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA),
triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was
completed on April 9, 2015, in association with the registration
requests for several triazole fungicides (propiconazole,
difenoconazole, and flutriafol). That analysis concluded that risk
estimates were below the Agency's level of concern for all population
groups. This assessment may be found on http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for the following title and docket ID number: ``Common
Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to
Address The New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Propiconazole on
Tea, Dill, Mustard Greens, Radish, and Watercress; Use of
Difenoconazole on Globe Artichoke, Ginseng and Greenhouse Grown
Cucumbers and Conversion of the Established Foliar Uses/Tolerances for
Stone Fruit and Tree Nut Crop Groups to Fruit, Stone, Group 12-12 and
the Nut, Tree, Group 14-12.; and Use of Flutriafol on Hops'' located
under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0685.

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 Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA 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. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, fetal effects observed in this study at a dose
lower than that evoking maternal toxicity are considered to be
quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility of fetuses to in
utero exposure to propiconazole. Neither quantitative nor qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in utero or post-
natally in either the rabbit developmental or 2-generation reproduction
rat study. There is no evidence of neuropathology or abnormalities in
the development of the fetal nervous system from the available toxicity
studies conducted with propiconazole. In the rat acute neurotoxicity
study, there was evidence of clinical toxicity at the high dose of 300
mg/kg, but no evidence of neuropathology from propiconazole
administration.
    Although there was quantitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of the young following exposure to propiconazole in the
developmental rat study, the Agency determined there is a low degree of
concern for this finding and no residual uncertainties because the
increased susceptibility was based on minimal toxicity at high doses of
administration, clear NOAELs and LOAELs have been identified for all
effects of concern, and a clear dose-response has been well defined.
    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 to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for propiconazole is complete.
    ii. Other than the mild effects seen at 300 mg/kg in the acute
neurotoxicity study, neurotoxicity and neurobehavioral effects were not
seen in the propiconazole toxicity database. The liver, not the nervous
system, is the primary target organ of propiconazole toxicity.
    iii. Although an apparent increased quantitative susceptibility was
observed in fetuses and offspring, for reasons noted in this Unit,
residual uncertainties or concerns for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity are minimal.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The acute dietary food exposure assessments were performed
based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, while the chronic used a
combination of tolerance-level residues and reliable data on average
field trial residues and 100 PCT. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to propiconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. A turf
transferable residue study is unavailable but being requested from the
registrant for registration review of propiconazole. In all probability
this

study will reduce exposure estimates for both the incidental oral and
post-application exposure to children. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by propiconazole.

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 propiconazole will occupy 85% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
propiconazole from food and water will utilize 24% 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
propiconazole 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). Propiconazole
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 propiconazole.
    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 MOEs from post-
application activities (the highest exposure scenario) of 200 for
adults and 96 for children 1-2 years old. This assessment is considered
conservative since the short-term endpoints are based on a conservative
LOAEL that is 3x higher than the NOAEL. Therefore, the true NOAEL is
likely higher and would result in MOEs greater than 100. Further, the
assessment is based on a combination of tolerance-level residues and
reliable data on average field-trial residues and 100 PCT, conservative
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling, and conservative
assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. Additionally, the assessment
could be further refined by using PCT estimates and anticipated
residues for all crops. Although dietary (food and water) is not the
aggregate exposure driver, incorporating PCT would likely increase the
aggregate MOE further above 100. For example, the Agency's latest PCT
figures indicate that the highest average PCT reported for
propiconazole residues on crops is 55%, which is much less than the 100
PCT the Agency used for all commodities in its assessment. Accordingly,
even though this MOE for children 1-2 years old is slightly below the
target MOE of 100, the difference is small and is more than offset by
the conservative exposure assumptions and therefore 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).
    Propiconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to propiconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 110 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level
of concern for propiconazole is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not
of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk
assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. As there is
no chronic risk of concern, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the
U.S. population from aggregate exposure to propiconazole.
    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 propiconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a high performance liquid
chromatography with ultraviolet detection method (HPLC/UV Method AG-
671A) 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 not established an MRL for propiconazole on tea.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
propiconazole, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on tea
at 4.0 ppm. As there are currently no U.S. registrations for
propiconazole for use on tea, EPA is adding a footnote to the
regulation to clarify that fact.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action 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 action 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 tolerance 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 action 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(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 (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: December 16, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
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.  180.434:
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (a) as paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. Add a new paragraph (a)(2).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.434  Propiconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *
    (2) Tolerances are established for propiconazole, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table
below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be
determined by measuring only propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-
4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on the
commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts per
                       Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tea \1\................................................             4.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no United States registrations for use of propiconazole on
  tea as of December 24, 2015.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-32328 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM) ( Renewal).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for the regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM were proposed on August 13, 2002 and promulgated on January 2, 2004. These regulations apply to each miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations, and associated equipment or containers used for mixing, conveying, storage, or waste at existing facilities and new facilities. New facilities include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the date of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP standards.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these documents, and retain the file for at least five years following the date of such notifications, reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office.

Approximately 1635 respondents are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that 45 additional respondent will become subject to the regulation in each of the next three years.

OMB approved the currently active ICR without any " Terms of Clearance." 2 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

The predominant HAPs emitted from miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations include xylenes, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, phenol, and cresols/ cresylic acid. In the Administrator's judgement, the pollutants emitted from miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP for this source category were promulgated at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMM.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of HAP from miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of HAP from miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations result from the coating operations, and associated equipment or containers used for mixing, conveying, storage, or waste. These standards rely on compliant coatings, emission capture systems, add on controls, and work practice standards. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions 3 under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance on an on going basis with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements also is used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005, ( 70 FR 11239). EPA received a request that burden and cost estimates be revised to include the higher burden and cost incurred by the ten magnet wire facilities nationwide. EPA discussed the comment with magnet wire industry representatives to obtain greater detail. Magnet wire facilities have approximately 20 times as many processes as other facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. A magnet wire facility typically uses process ovens as a control device to combust coating residuals, increasing energy efficiency. Based on our discussion with industry representatives, we have revised Tables 2b and 2c to increase certain magnet wire facility burden and costs by a factor of 20, and have revised capital/ startup and O& M costs to reflect the facilities' need to install and maintain monitoring systems for their ovens, and are providing a written response to comments received.

3( c) Consultations After reviewing our internal data sources and industry experts, we have determined that additional consultations with industry are inappropriate for this ICR renewal. 4 Estimates of industry size, growth rate, and burden were developed with extensive participation and consultation with miscellaneous metals surface coating industry representatives during recent rulemaking for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. EPA believes that these estimates remain valid, and are the best information available. Burden estimates that apply specifically to magnet wire facilities have been revised to reflect industry comments on this ICR. ( See Section 3( b), Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB.) The Agency currently collects the minimum amount of information necessary to ensure compliance with the standard.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that perform surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products and that are classified as major sources under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. In general, facilities that coat miscellaneous metal parts and products are covered under the North American Industrial PRODUCT EXAMPLES AND CORRESPONDING NAICS AND SIC CODES FOR MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS SOURCE CATEGORY 5 Classification System ( NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes are listed in the table below. However, facilities classified under other NAICS or SIC codes may be subject to the proposed standard if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS and SIC codes in the table will be subject to the proposed standard because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products.

Segment Description Example Products Example SIC Example NAICS Aerospace Equipment Engines and Turbines, Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts, Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Aircraft Engines, Aircraft Parts, Aerospace Ground Equipment 3724, 3728, 376X, 336413, 336414, 336415, 54171 Automobile Parts Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Engine Parts, Vehicle Parts and Accessories, Brakes, Axles, etc. 3711, 3713, 3714, 3292, 3429, 3465, 3694, 3829 335312, 336111, 336211, 336312, 33632, 33633, 33634, 33637, 336399 Extruded Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals Extruded Aluminum, Architectural Components, Coils, Rod, and Tubes 3354, 3365, 3442, 3446 331316, 331524, 332321, 332323 Heavy Equipment Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment, Construction Machinery and Equipment Tractors, Earth moving machinery 3511, 3519, 352X, 353X, 33312, 333611, 333618 Job Shops Coat Products by Job and Customer Rather than Coating the One Product or Group of Products Any of the Products from the MMPP Segments 3441, 3471, 3499, 3999 332312, 332722, 332813, 332991, 332999, 334119, 336413, 339999 Large Trucks and Buses Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Large Trucks, Buses 3711, 3713, 3716 33612, 336211 Magnet Wire Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metal Wire Magnet Wire 3351, 3357 331319, 331422, 335929 Metal Buildings Prefabricated Metal Buildings and Components Prefabricated Metal: Buildings, Carports, Docks, Dwellings, Greenhouses, Panels for Buildings 3448 332311 Segment Description Example Products Example SIC Example NAICS 6 Metal Containers Metal Shipping Barrels, Drums, Kegs, and Pails Drums, Kegs, Pails, Shipping Containers 2655, 3089, 3325, 3412, 3443, 5085 33242, 81131, 322214, 326199, 331513, 332439 Metal Pipe and Foundry Primary Metal Industries Plate, Tube, Rods, Nails, Spikes, etc. 331X, 332X, 336X, 3399 331111, 331513, 33121, 331221, 331511 Rail Transportation Transportation Equipment Brakes, Engines, Freight Cars, Locomotives 3731, 3743, 4011, 4741 33651, 336611, 482111 Recreational Vehicles Transportation Equipment Motorcycles, Motor Homes, Semitrailers, Truck Trailers 3083, 3354, 3713, 3714, 3716, 375X, 3792 3369, 331316, 336991, 336211, 336112, 336213, 336214, 336399 Rubber to Metal Products Fabricated Rubber Products ( applied to metal) Engine Mounts, Rubberized Tank Tread, Harmonic Balancers 3061, 3069, 3479 326291, 326299 Structural Steel Fabricated Structural Metal Products Joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections 3441, 3448 332311, 332312 Other Transportation Equipment Transportation Equipment Not Listed Otherwise Miscellaneous Transportation Related Equipment and Parts 3711, 3519, 3714, 3715, 3795, 3621, 336212, 336999, 33635, 56121, 8111, 56211 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMM.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Requirement Regulation reference Initial Notification 63.3910( b)

Notification of Compliance Status 63.3910( c)

Notification of construction or reconstruction 63.9( b)

Notification of actual date of initial startup 63.9( b) Notification Reports 7 Notification of intent to conduct a performance test 63.7( b); 63.9( e); 63.3910( a)

Periodic reports ( semiannual) 63.3920( a)

statement of compliance ( if no exceedances occurred) 63.3920( a)

average monitoring data for any periods where exceedances or excursions occur 63.3920( a)

periods of monitoring system downtime 63.3920( a)

results of any performance tests 63.3920( b)

start up, shutdown, malfunction reports 63.3920( c)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping Five year retention of records 63.10( b)( 1)

Material formulation data 63.3930( b)

Records of HAP content calculations 63.3930( c)

Copies of Notifications and Reports 63.3930( a)

Records of names of materials used 63.3930( d)

HAP fractions in each material used 63.3930( e)

Coating solids fraction in each material used 63.3930( f)

Density of materials used 63.3930( g)

Documentation of waste material shipped offsite 63.3930( h)

Start up, shutdown, and malfunction plan/ records 63.6( e)( 3); 63.3900( c); 63.3930( k)

Documentation of control device performance tests 63.10( b)( 2); 63.3930( k)

Values measured by continuous monitoring systems 63.3968 Monitoring system calibrations, maintenance 63.3968 Periods of monitoring system failure/ shutdown 63.3968 8 Electronic Reporting Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e. g., inlet and outlet concentrations when determining percent efficiency. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CPMS for capture system and add on control device efficiency at sources using these to comply with the standard.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, 204F or 311 test as applicable, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of 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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information. 9 5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System ( AFS).

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, and EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the respondents are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations 10 and the types of control equipment employed , the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d document the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for each of the subparts included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 60.747.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 675,050 hours ( Total Labor Hours calculated from Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d as follows).

Annual burden to industry Total burden, hours Total cost, $

Year 31: Table 1a ( existing) + Table 1d ( new) 240,465 19,412,425 Year 41: Table 1b ( existing) + Table 1d ( new) 881,682 71,117,037 Year 51: Table 1c ( existing) + Table 1d ( new) 903,003 72,898,253 Average annual industry burden and cost 675,050 54,475,905 1 Years 3, 4, and 5 refer to the number of years after promulgation of the rule. 11 These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 97.46 ($ 46.41 + 110%) Technical $ 83.71 ($ 39.86 + 110%) Clerical $ 42.55 ($ 20.26 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standards are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startu p Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startu p Cost ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

CPMS $ 166,667 101 $ 1,666,667 $ 50,000 10 $ 500,000 1 There are 10 magnet wire facilities that incur a capital/ startup cost of approximately $ 500,000 each by the 4th year after promulgation. Other facilities are expected to comply with the standards by reformulating their coating materials rather than purchasing add on control devices.

The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 1,666,667. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs. 12 The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 500,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 2,166,667. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 1,608,425 ( calculated from Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c as follows).

Annual burden to Agency Total burden, hours Total cost, $

Year 31: Table 2a 414 16,784 Year 41: Table 2b 69,966 2,836,422 Year 51: Table 2c 48,645 1,972,068 Average annual Agency burden and cost 39,675 1,608,425 1 Years 3,4, and 5 refer to the number of years after promulgation of the rule.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Technical $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Clerical $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM). 13 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 1,590 existing sources are currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that an additional 45 sources per year will become subject to the standard in each of the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 45 1,590 0 0 1,635 2 45 1,635 0 0 1,680 3 45 1,680 0 0 1,725 Average 45 1,635 0 0 1,680 1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

To avoid double counting respondents column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 1,680. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents. 14 The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Initial notification 45 1 0 45 Notification of performance test1 3.3 1 0 3.3 Notification of compliance status 1,680 1 0 1,680 Semiannual report 1,680 2 0 1,680 Total 3,408 1There are 10 magnet wire facilities that each submit a notification of performance test in the 4th year after promulgation. Other facilities are expected to comply with the standards by reformulating their coating materials rather than purchasing add on control devices, making performance tests unnecessary.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 3,408 ( rounded). This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses. Note that four respondents have been double counted in the above table because they have both existing affected facilities and new affected facilities.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 54,475,905. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), attached.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entities are $ 2,166,667. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 39,675 labor hours at a cost of $ 1,608,425. See Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), attached. 15 16 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d, and Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c, respectively, and summarized below.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 54,475,905. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), attached. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 198 hours per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 2,166,667. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 39,675 labor hours at a cost of $ 1,608,425. See Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM), attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is an increase in burden of 535,670 hours from the most recently approved ICR, due to an adjustment. The bulk of this increase is due to the recalculation of burden for magnet wire facilities, in response to a comment received ( see Section 3( c), Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB). Magnet wire facilities have approximately 20 times as many processes as other facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM. A magnet wire facility typically uses process ovens as a control device to combust coating residuals, increasing energy efficiency. Based on our discussion with industry representatives, we have revised Tables 1b and 1c to increase certain magnet wire facility burden and costs by a factor of 20. Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs have also been revised to reflect the magnet wire facility costs. Additionally, a smaller portion of the increase in burden ( 28,359 hours) is due to the incremental burden for 45 additional respondents per year.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is 17 estimated to average 198 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 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 valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 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 Number OECA 2005 0003, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 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 Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. 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. When 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, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0003 and OMB Control Number 2060 0486 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 18 Table 1a. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Year 3  Existing Facilities NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hrs.

per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hrs.

per year ( F= E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hrs.

per year ( G= E* 0.1) ( I) Annual costs ($)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 1,590 63,600 3,180 6,360 5,904,497 3.0 Training 16 1 16 1,590 25,440 1,272 2,544 2,361,799 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 1,590 95,400 4,770 9,540 8,856,745 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 18 12 216 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 12 12 144 0 0 0 0 0 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 202 34 548 4,770 184,440 9,222 18,444 17,123,041 212,106 19 Table 1b. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Year 4  Existing Facilities NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs.

per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hrs.

per year ( F= E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hrs.

per year ( G= E* 0.1) ( H) Annual costs ($)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 1,635 6,540 327 654 607,161 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 1,635 13,080 654 1,308 1,214,321 3.0 Training 8 1 8 1,635 13,080 654 1,308 1,214,321 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 1,635 0 0 0 0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 18 12 216 1,625 351,000 17,550 35,100 32,586,138 5.1 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect  Magnet Wire Facilities1 360 12 4,320 10 43,200 2,160 4,320 4,010,602 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 12 12 144 1,625 234,000 11,700 23,400 21,724,092 6.1 Process/ Compile and Review

Magnet Wire Facilities1 240 12 2,880 10 28,800 1,440 2,880 2,673,734 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 1,635 26,160 1,308 2,616 2,428,642 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 1,635 13,080 654 1,308 1,214,321 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 1,635 13,080 654 1,308 1,214,321 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 666 58 7,612 14,715 742,020 37,101 74,202 68,887,653 853,323 Footnotes 1 The ten magnet wire facilities on average incorporate approximately 20 times the number of processes typical for the industry. Accordingly, burden of gathering information,

monitoring, inspecting, and processing, compiling, and reviewing has been estimated at 20 times the industry average per facility. 20 Table 1c. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Year 5  Existing Facilities NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs.

per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hrs.

per year ( F= E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hrs.

per year ( G= E* 0.1) ( H) Annual costs ($)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 4 1 4 1,680 6,720 336 672 623,871 2.0 Plan Activities 8 1 8 1,680 13,440 672 1,344 1,247,743 3.0 Training 8 1 8 1,680 13,440 672 1,344 1,247,743 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 0 1 0 1,680 0 0 0 0 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 18 12 216 1,670 360,720 18,036 36,072 33,488,523 5.1 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect  Magnet Wire Facilities1 360 12 4,320 10 43,200 2,160 4,320 4,010,602 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 12 12 144 1,670 240,480 12,024 24,048 22,325,682 6.1 Process/ Compile and Review

Magnet Wire Facilities1 240 12 2,880 10 28,800 1,440 2,880 2,673,734 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 1,680 26,880 1,344 2,688 2,495,485 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 1,680 13,440 672 1,344 1,247,743 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 1,680 13,440 672 1,344 1,247,743 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 666 58 7,612 15,120 760,560 38,028 76,056 70,608,869 874,644 Footnotes 1 The ten magnet wire facilities on average incorporate approximately 20 times the number of processes typical for the industry. Accordingly, burden of gathering information,

monitoring, inspecting, and processing, compiling, and reviewing has been estimated at 20 times the industry average per facility. 21 Table 1d. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  Years 3, 4, and 5  New Facilities NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

( Years 3, 4, and 5 will be identical, as 45 new facilities are constructed each year)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C) Person hrs.

per respondent per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person  hrs.

per year ( E= C* D) ( F) Management person hrs.

per year ( F= E* 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hrs.

per year ( G= E* 0.1) ( H) Annual costs ($)

1.0 Read Rule and Instructions 40 1 40 45 1,800 90 180 167,108 2.0 Plan Activities 40 1 40 45 1,800 90 180 167,108 3.0 Training 16 1 16 45 720 36 72 66,843 4.0 Create, Test, and Research and Development 60 1 60 45 2,700 135 270 250,663 5.0 Gather Information, Monitor,

and Inspect 18 12 216 45 9,720 486 972 902,385 6.0 Process/ Compile and Review 12 12 144 45 6,480 324 648 601,590 7.0 Complete Reports 8 2 16 45 720 36 72 66,843 8.0 Record/ Disclose 4 2 8 45 360 18 36 33,422 9.0 Store/ File 4 2 8 45 360 18 36 33,422 10.0 LDAR Reporting and Recordkeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BURDEN ( HRS) AND COSTS 202 34 548 405 24,660 1,233 2,466 2,289,384 28,359 22 Table 2a. Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Year 3 NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs ($/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 Report review 0 0 0 0 a) initial notification 8 45 360 18 36 16,784 b) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 c) notif. of compliance status 0 0 0 0 0 0 d) semiannual report 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Burden ( Hrs) and Costs 360 18 36 16,784 414 23 Table 2b. Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Year 4 NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs ($/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 Report review 0 0 0 0 a) initial notification 8 45 360 18 36 16,784 b) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 c) notif. of compliance status 12 1,680 20,160 1,008 2,016 939,879 d) semiannual report 12 3,360 40,320 2,016 4,032 1,879,759 Total Burden ( Hrs) and Costs 60,840 3,042 6,084 2,836,422 69,966 24 Table 2c. Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Year 5 NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM)

Burden Item ( A)

Person hours per activity ( B) Number of activities per year ( C) Technical person hours per year ( C= A* B) ( D) Management person hours per year ( D= C* 0.05) ( E) Clerical person hours per year ( E= C* 0.1) ( F)

Annual costs ($/ yr)

1.0 Initial performance and test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 Repeat performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 Report review 0 0 0 0 a) initial notification 8 45 360 18 36 16,784 b) notif. of performance test N/ A 0 0 0 0 0 c) notif. of compliance status 12 45 540 27 54 25,175 d) semiannual report 12 3,450 41,400 2,070 4,140 1,930,109 Total Burden ( Hrs) and Costs 42,300 2,115 4,230 1,972,068 48,645


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 69 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19835-19836]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 390

Rescission of Certain Emergency Exemptions

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

ACTION: Notice of rescission.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), after
consultation with representatives of the governors of the affected
States, rescinds certain covered emergency exemptions. The exemptions
originally took effect automatically upon declaration of an emergency
by various governors or FMCSA, and were extended by FMCSA after
consultation with representatives of the governors. The President
signed the ``Home Heating Emergency Assistance Through Transportation
Act of 2014'' (HHEATT Act, or ``the Act'') on March 21, 2014. The Act
extends until May 31, 2014, all ``covered emergency exemptions''
created between February 5, 2014, and March 21, 2014, to provide
regulatory relief to commercial motor vehicle operators directly
supporting the delivery of propane and other home heating fuels. In
accordance with the Act, FMCSA has consulted with representatives of
each of the governors to determine whether emergency circumstances
still exist and has determined that certain covered emergency
exemptions created under the HHEATT Act are no longer necessary and
should be rescinded.

DATES: This decision is effective April 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 21, 2014, the President signed the HHEATT Act. The Act
extends until May 31, 2014, all ``covered emergency exemptions'' issued
(or extended) by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) under 49 CFR 390.23 or 390.25 between February 5, 2014, and
March 21, 2014, to provide regulatory relief to commercial motor
vehicle operators directly supporting the delivery of propane and other
home heating fuels ``. . . unless the Secretary of Transportation,
after consultation with the Governors of the affected States,
determines that the emergency for which the exemption was provided ends
before that date'' [Section 2(a)].
    The HHEATT Act revived or extended the Agency's emergency
exemptions for 36 States and the District of Columbia. FMCSA has
contacted the chief executives of these jurisdictions, or their
designees, to inquire whether critical shortages of propane and other
home heating fuels still persist, or whether the exemptions may no
longer be needed.
    Thirty States plus DC have replied that they are no longer
experiencing shortages of propane and other home heating fuels. Six
governors have indicated that fuel supplies in their States have not
yet returned to normal and that they want the exemption to remain in
effect [Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and
Virginia].
    In accordance with Section 2(a) of the HHEATT Act, FMCSA rescinds,
effective immediately, the emergency declarations or extensions issued
between February 5, 2014, and March 21, 2014, for the following States
and DC, which have reported that the exemptions are no longer needed:

Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
West Virginia

Wisconsin

    The emergency declaration extension will remain in effect until
further notice, but in no circumstances, beyond May 31, 2014, for the
following six States:

Illinois
Maryland
Minnesota
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Virginia

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

    Issued on: April 3, 2014.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-08021 Filed 4-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P