  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

April 19, 2006

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Qualitative impact assessment of extensions to restricted entry
intervals for phosmet in pears (DP # 296575)

FROM:	David W. Brassard, Senior Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

Stephen Smearman, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

Tim Kiely, Chief, Acting

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

TO:		Diane Isbell, Chemical Review Manager

		Margaret Rice, Chief

		Reregistration Branch II

Special Review and Reregistration Division

Product Review Panel:  April 7, 2006

Summary

EPA is considering mitigation strategies to address concerns for workers
exposed to phosmet following applications to pear orchards.  This is a
preliminary, qualitative assessment of the impact of extending the
restricted entry interval (REI).

The current REI for pears is 3 days.  A REI greater than seven days
would interfere with irrigation, mowing, scouting and hand harvesting
activities and a REI greater than 14 days would interfere with fire
blight removal activities.  If a longer REI is imposed, growers would
have to replace phosmet with one or more of several available
alternatives.  BEAD tentatively concludes that no yield or quality
losses are likely if growers switch to alternative insecticides.
Production costs would likely increase by 3% because alternatives are
more costly and have to be applied more often.

Background

Based on post-application worker risk assessments, EPA is considering
mitigation strategies, including extending the restricted entry interval
(REI) for phosmet use on pears.  The risk assessment indicates that an
REI of 28 days would be necessary to reduce risks to worker below the
Agency’s level of concern.  The current REI for pears is 3 days and
the current preharvest interval is 7 days. The purpose of this
assessment is to provide a preliminary, qualitative assessment of the
impact of increasing the REI to 28 days on pear producers and the pear
industry.

Pears

The most recent available statistics indicate that about 64,700 acres of
pears are grown in the US (USDA NASS, 2004).  Over 94% of the acreage is
in the western states of California, Oregon, and Washington.  Colorado,
Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Utah grow the
remaining 6% of the pear acreage.  Production has averaged about 800,000
tons annually with a total value of about $295 million.  This is
illustrated in Table 1 below.  Producer prices are around $340/ton and
growers gross revenues average $4,600/acre (USDA NASS, 2004).

Table 1. Pear Production, Value, and Phosmet Usage*

States	Acres in Production	Production as a Percentage of Total US
Production 	Phosmet Usage 2003** (Percent of Crop Treated)	Total
Production (metric tons)	Total Value of Production (1,000 dollars)

California	17,000	26%	10%	244,101	80,149

Oregon	17,600	27%	33%	188,747	72,748

Washington	26,300	41%	18%	350,272	131,483

Connecticut	n/a	n/a

900	n/a

Michigan	800	n/a

3,460	n/a

New York	1400	n/a

16,500	n/a

Pennsylvania	900	n/a

4,500	n/a

Utah	130	n/a

300	n/a

US Total	64,700

21%	806,261	295,531

*Sources: USDA/ NASS 2004, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2004.

**USDA/NASS Agricultural Chemical Use Database 2006a

Recent Use of Phosmet

Phosmet is applied to about 21% of the U.S. pear acreage (USDA/NASS,
2006a).   Usage is quite variable from state to state and from year to
year.  In 2003, California pear growers treated only 10% of the pear
acreage (USDA/NASS, 2006a) but, by 2004, 23% of California pear acreage
was treated with phosmet (CDFA.2006).   U.S pear growers apply phosmet
at an average of 1.2 applications per year at an average application
rate of 3.2 lbs ai/acre (USDA/NASS, 2006a).   California growers apply
an average of 1.5 applications of phosmet per year at an application
rate of 4.2 lbs ai/acre.  The usage and importance of phosmet is likely
to increase if azinphos-methyl were unavailable.

Maximum Feasible REIs

The 2001 BEAD assessment concluded that the maximum REI that would not
interfere with orchard activities is around seven days for irrigation,
mowing, scouting and hand harvesting activities and 14 days for fire
blight removal (Cook and Kiely, 2001).  Extension of phosmet REI(s
beyond these periods would interfere with these practices and would
force growers to abandon the use phosmet on pears.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1

Impacts of Extending the REI beyond the Maximum Feasible Length

Extending the REI beyond the maximum feasible length (7 days) would
result in growers turning to one of several available alternatives for
control of pests targeted by phosmet.  These pests include the codling
moth and the grape mealybug.

Alternatives

Alternatives (chemical class) for control of these pests are:

azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon and naled (organophosphate);

acetamiprid, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam (neonicotinoids)

indoxacarb (oxadiazine)

carbaryl (carbamate);

esfenvalerate, fenpropathrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and permethrin
(synthetic pyrethroids);

diflubenzuron, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, pyriproxyfen, and
tebufenozide (insect growth regulators);

spinosad (actinomycete derivative);

Bacillus thuringiensis (biopesticide)

mating disruption (pheromones)

Kaolin (clay)

BEAD believes that acetamiprid and methoxyfenozide are among the most
effective and promising alternatives to phosmet.  BEAD’s review of
available efficacy data concluded that acetamiprid and methoxyfenozide
are somewhat less effective than phosmet and will have to be applied
more frequently to achieve equivalent levels of control (Brassard and
Smearman, 2005, 2006; Brunner et al, 2005; Doerr et al, 2004).  BEAD
believes that growers are likely to substitute two applications of
acetamiprid and one application of methoxyfenozide for two applications
of phosmet.  See attachment 1 for a comparative efficacy table of
phosmet alternatives and annotated efficacy summary of Brunner et al
(2005) and Doerr et al (2004) studies in references section.

Azinphos-methyl is as effective as phosmet but its long REI’s (7-14
days) and preharvest intervals (14-21 days) severely hamper its
usefulness as an alternative.  Additionally, the pear use of
azinphos-methyl is currently undergoing reregistration review and its
use on pears may be further restricted in the near future. Some of the
alternatives, such as pyrethroids, are less compatible with integrated
pest management (IPM) and mating disruption programs than is phosmet.
Pyrethroids often precipitate secondary pest outbreaks, such as spider
mites, and cause growers to resort to the use of miticides, which may
cost over $50 per acre.

In addition, extension of the REI for hand-harvesting beyond 7 days may
lead to unnecessary prophylactic insecticide applications to ensure crop
protection prior to harvest.

In recent years, broad-spectrum insecticides, such as organophosphates,
are being replaced by insecticides with a narrower activity spectrum.
The older chemicals not only controlled the target pest(s), but also,
most other exposed insects.  A consequence of the shift to newer
chemistries is that crop damage from insects that until recently were
considered minor pests appears to be increasing.  However concomitantly,
the shift to narrower-spectrum chemicals may result in less mortality
for beneficial species, including natural enemies, which should in turn
increase natural mortality for some insect pests, ultimately leading to
less pesticide use. To the extent that these pest dynamics continue to
evolve and remain rather difficult to predict, this analysis examines
only potential short-term  (two to three years) impacts of replacing
phosmet with insecticides with a narrower activity spectrum.

Impacts

Because a REI for phosmet beyond seven days (or 14 days prior to fire
blight thinning) would interfere with key crop production and pest
management practices, growers would likely stop using it altogether and
turn to one or more of several available alternatives.  Based on the
availability of new alternatives, BEAD tentatively concludes that yield
or quality losses are unlikely if phosmet could not be used.  It is
likely that production costs will increase because alternatives are more
costly, would have to be applied more often, or would result in
applications of additional pesticides to control secondary pests.

BEAD’s alternative scenario of substituting two applications of
acetamiprid and one application of methoxyfenozide for two applications
of phosmet would result in a cost increase of $112 per acre which is
equivalent to a 3% increase in production costs (or 12% of net
revenues).

Request for Additional Information in Stakeholder Comments

As this is a preliminary assessment, BEAD would welcome data that could
be used to refine this assessment if necessary.  Useful information
would include:

usage information for states other than California;

particular regional or pest problems leading to phosmet use;

comparative product performance data, including yield and quality
impacts;

relative product costs; and

restrictions or other constraints on the use of alternatives.

Information on the feasibility of use, comparative efficacy, and/or cost
of use of non-chemical alternatives to phosmet.

References

Brassard, D.W., and S. Smearman. 2005.  2005 Grower Impact Assessment of
Azinphos-methyl Use in Pears (DP 307589).  Internal Document.
Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001

Brassard, D.W., and S. Smearman. 2006.  BEAD Response to Comments
Received Regarding 2005 Grower Impact Assessment of Azinphos-methyl Use
in Pears.  Internal Document.  Biological and Economic Analysis
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001

Brunner JF, Beers EH, Dunley JE, Doerr M, Granger K. 2005. Role of
neonicotinyl insecticides in Washington apple integrated pest
management. Part I. Control of lepidopteran pests. 10pp. Journal of
Insect Science, 5:14, Available online:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.insectscience.org/5.14/Brunner_et_al_JIS_5_14_2005.pdf"
http://www.insectscience.org/5.14/Brunner_et_al_JIS_5_14_2005.pdf

[Contains efficacy data from 33 heavily infested apple orchards in
Washington.  In these efficacy tests, the grower standard
(azinphos-methyl and/or phosmet) provided significantly better control
of codling moth than acetamiprid in 20 out of 33 trials.
Azinphos-methyl averaged 94% control in these trials compared to 82%
control achieved by acetamiprid and 71% control achieved by
thiacloprid.]

Cook, C. and T. Kiely, 2001.  Biological and Economic Analysis of AZM
and Phosmet on Pears.  Unpublished Report.  Biological and Economic
Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency 20460.
www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/azinphos/bead_Pears1.pdf

Crop Data Management System.  2006.  ChemSearch Database.

Doerr, M., J. Brunner, E. Beers, J. Dunley, and V. Jones. 2004.
Building a multi-tactic pheromone based pest management system in
western orchards.  Unpublished Progress Report.  Tree Fruit Research and
Extension Center, Wenatchee, WA

[Contains efficacy data from 15 operational apple orchards using mating
disruption in Washington.  In these efficacy tests, the grower standard
(azinphos-methyl and/or phosmet) provided levels codling moth control
equivalent to those seen in methoxyfenozide and other
selective/non-organophosphate insecticides.]

UC Pest Management Guidelines.  2006.  Pear.  University of California,
Statewide 	Integrated Pest Management

CDFA.2006.  Usage of Agricultural Pesticides in California: 2004
Pesticide Usage Report. California Department of Food and Agriculture,
Sacramento, CA 95814,    HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PUSE/puse1.html"
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PUSE/puse1.html

USDA/NASS, 2006a.  Agricultural Chemical Use Database.
http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/

USDA/NASS.  2006b.  Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, 2005 Preliminary Summary.
 National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, January, at   HYPERLINK
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncit0106.pdf
"
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncit0106.pdf
.

Attachment 1. Comparative Efficacy of Phosmet Alternatives on Pears*

Alternatives (commercial name in parenthesis)   	Efficacy Ratings of
Alternatives **

	From BEAD’s 2001 Benefits Assessment for AZM and Phosmet on Pears
(Cook and Kiely 2001)	From 2003 Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pears
(USDA 2003) and Brunner et al. (2004)	From Efficacy Data Submitted by
Bayer (White 2004) ++

	Codling Moth	Grape mealybug	Codling moth	Grape mealybug	Codling moth

Phosmet (Imidan)	G-E	G-E	F-G

G-E

	Abamectin**

	F-G

G

Acetamiprid (Assail)***

	G-E	G	G

Azinphosmethyl (Guthion)	G-E	G-E	G-E

G-E

Bacillus thuringiensis**

	P	P

	Buprofezin****

E

	Carbaryl (Sevin)	F

G

Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban)

G	G

Codling moth granulosis virus***

	F-G	P

	Diazinon	F

F

Diflubenzuron (Dimilin)***

	F

F

Diflubenzuron + Summer oil

	G

Esfenvalerate (Asana)	F-G

E

Fenpropathrin (Danitol)	F-G

G

F

Imidacloprid

F

G

	Indoxacarb (Avaunt)***

	P

F

Kaolin (Surround)**

	F	P

	Lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate, Warrior)***

	Methoxyfenozide (Intrepid)***

	G	P	G

Naled (Dibrom)

	F-G

Neem/Azadiractin**

	P	P

	Novaluron (Diamond) *****

	G-E

Permethrin (Ambush, Pounce)	F-G

Pheromones

	F-G

Pyriproxyfen (Esteem)***

	F-G	P

	Spinosad (Success, Spintor, Tracer))

	P-F

Summer oil**

	F-E

F

Tebufenozide (Confirm, Mimic)***	P

F	P	F-G

Thiacloprid (Calypso)

	G-E	F-G	G-E

Thiamethoxam (Actara)***

	P	G-E

	* BEAD has not determined that these potential alternatives could serve
as one to one AZM replacements.

**  =  registered in 2001 but not considered as an alternative in
BEAD’s 2001 benefits assessment

*** New alternatives

**** Currently unregistered

*****Not registered in California

P = poor, F = fair, G = good, E = excellent, based on USDA (2003).

++ All rankings are relative to AZM , whose performance was assumed to
be good to excellent based on Cook and Kiely (2001) and USDA (2003).
For example, diflubenzuron, which usually performed worse than AZM, got
an F rating whereas diflubenzuron plus oil, which worked nearly as well
as AZM got a G rating.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64993-64994]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-28466; 812-13585]

Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust, et al.; Notice of
Application and Temporary Order

October 24, 2008.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application and a temporary order under Section
22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'').

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request a temporary order to
permit certain of their series to suspend the right of redemption of
their outstanding redeemable securities and to postpone payment for
shares which have been submitted for redemption for which payment has
not been made.
    Applicants: Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust on behalf of two
of its series, Arizona Municipal Money-Market Fund and Minnesota
Municipal Money-Market Fund; Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust II,
on behalf of nine of its series, Interstate Tax-Exempt Fund, California
Municipal Money-Market Fund, Connecticut Municipal Money-Market Fund,
Florida Municipal Money-Market Fund, Michigan Municipal Money-Market
Fund, New Jersey Municipal Money-Market Fund, Ohio Municipal Money-
Market Fund, Pennsylvania Municipal Money-Market Fund and Virginia
Municipal Money-Market Fund; Reserve New York Municipal Money-Market
Trust on behalf of its single series, New York Municipal Money-Market
Fund; and Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust on behalf of one of its
series, Reserve Yield Plus Fund (Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust,
Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust II, Reserve New York Municipal
Money-Market Trust, and Reserve Short-Term Investment Trust,
collectively, the ``Applicants'' or the ``Trusts,'' and each such
series of Reserve Municipal Money-Market Trust, Reserve Municipal
Money-Market Trust II and Reserve New York Municipal Money-Market
Trust, a ``Money Market Fund'').
    Filing Date: The application was filed on October 14, 2008 and
amended on October 24, 2008.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: Interested persons may request
a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving
Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing
requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on November
17, 2008, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants,
in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 1250 Broadway, New
York, NY 10001-3701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian P. Murphy, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Chief
Counsel).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The complete application may be obtained for
a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1520 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Money Market Funds and the Reserve Yield Plus Fund
(collectively, the ``Funds'') is an open-end management investment
company registered with the Commission under the Act. Each Money Market
Fund is a money market fund that operates in a manner consistent with
Rule 2a-7 under the Act and that seeks a high level of short-term
interest income exempt from certain taxes as is consistent with the
preservation of capital and liquidity. The Reserve Yield Plus Fund
seeks as high a level of current income as is consistent with the
preservation of capital and liquidity.
    2. The Funds have been subject to a heavy level of redemption
requests. For example, from September 12, 2008 to October 8, 2008, the
total net assets of some of the Funds have declined as follows: (1) The
Interstate Tax-Exempt Fund's total net assets declined from $1.78
billion to $154.6 million; (2) the Michigan Municipal Money-Market

Fund's total net assets declined from $29.1 million to $5.3 million;
(3) the New Jersey Municipal Money-Market Fund's total net assets
declined from $72.2 million to $20.9 million; (4) the Ohio Municipal
Money-Market Fund's total net assets declined from $30.9 million to
$5.6 million; (5) the Pennsylvania Municipal Money-Market Fund's total
net assets declined from $74.4 million to $2.6 million; and (6) the New
York Municipal Money-Market Fund's total net assets declined from
$180.7 million to $91.8 million. The decline of each Fund's total net
assets was largely caused by heavy redemption requests and not
declining values associated with portfolio holdings. There has been no
abatement of the redemptions, and there is no reasonable basis for
believing that redemptions will abate.
    3. The Funds' have made efforts to raise cash to satisfy
redemptions from the Funds through the sale of certain short-term
portfolio securities or maturation of other portfolio securities. The
Funds are or soon will be limited in the amount of portfolio securities
that can be sold at or above amortized cost or that will mature in
seven days or less. The Funds' other portfolio securities can only be
sold at below amortized cost (possibly at fire-sale prices) due to the
extreme illiquidity and limited bids in the markets. In the view of the
boards of trustees of each Trust, including a majority of the trustees
who are not interested persons of such Trust within the meaning of
Section 2(a)(19) of the Act, (the ``Boards''), and the investment
adviser (the ``Adviser''), such sales would be inconsistent with the
Funds' investment objectives of preservation of capital and harmful to
non-redeeming shareholders.
    4. In response to these developments, on October 8, 2008, the
Boards, taking into account the recommendations of the Adviser,
determined to liquidate the Funds.
    5. On October 8, 2008, the Boards also determined that it would be
in the best interest of each Fund's shareholders to suspend the right
of redemption and postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon
redemption for more than seven days to allow Applicants the ability to
liquidate the portfolio securities of the Funds in an orderly manner
and allow the additional securities held by each Fund to mature. In
addition, the Boards determined to request an order under Section
22(e)(3) of the Act.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 22(e)(1) of the Act generally provides that a registered
investment company may not suspend the right of redemption or postpone
the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable
security in accordance with its terms for more than seven days after
the tender of such security to the company or its designated agent
except for any period during which the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') is closed other than customary week-end and holiday
closings, or during which trading on the NYSE is restricted.
    2. Section 22(e)(2) of the Act provides that the seven-day
redemption period does not apply for any period during which an
emergency exists, as determined by Commission rules and regulations, as
a result of which the disposal by a registered investment company of
portfolio securities is not reasonably practicable or it is not
reasonably practicable for the registered investment company fairly to
determine the value of its net assets.
    3. Section 22(e)(3) of the Act provides that redemptions may be
suspended by a registered investment company for such other periods as
the Commission may by order permit for the protection of security
holders of the registered investment company.
    4. Applicants submit that granting the requested relief is for the
protection of each Fund's shareholders, as provided in Section 22(e)(3)
of the Act. Applicants assert that, in requesting an order by the
Commission, the Boards' goal is to ensure that each of the Funds'
shareholders will be treated appropriately in view of the otherwise
detrimental effect on each Fund of the recent unprecedented illiquidity
of the markets and extraordinary levels of redemptions that the Funds
have experienced. Current market conditions continue to be
extraordinary, and the requested relief is intended to cause an orderly
liquidation of each of the Funds' portfolio securities and ensure that
all of their respective shareholders are protected in the process.
    5. Applicants further submit that the relief is appropriate
because: (1) The Boards: (a) Taking into account the recommendations of
the Adviser, determined on October 8, 2008 to liquidate the Funds, (b)
determined, on October 8, 2008, that a suspension of redemption is in
the best interest of each Fund's shareholders, (c) determined, on
October 8, 2008, that a postponement of payment for shares which have
been submitted for redemption for which payment has not been made is in
the best interest of each Fund's shareholders, and (d) promptly will
create plans for the orderly liquidation of each Fund's assets and for
the appropriate payments to each Fund's shareholders, including those
whose redemption orders have been received but not yet paid, which
plans will be subject to Commission supervision and which plans will
include a planned schedule of possible payments to Fund shareholders
that is based on the maturities of the portfolio securities held by
each Fund; (2) each Fund has previously suspended sales as of September
18, 2008; (3) each Fund will make and keep appropriate records
surrounding these events; and (4) each Fund continuously will provide
timely and appropriate information, including initial and ongoing
disclosure about the plan and its implementation, to its shareholders,
via Web site or otherwise.

Commission Finding

    Based on the representations in the application, including those
relating to the current extraordinary market conditions and the Boards'
October 8, 2008 determinations, the Commission permits the temporary
suspension of the right of redemption and postponement of payment for
shares which have been submitted for redemption for which payment has
not been made by the Funds for the protection of the Funds' security
holders. Under the circumstances described in the application, which
require immediate action to protect the Funds' security holders, the
Commission concludes that it is not practicable to give notice or an
opportunity to request a hearing before issuing the order. In addition,
under the circumstances described in the application, the Commission
concludes that the order should be effective as of the date of the
actions of the Boards.
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Act, that the
requested relief from Section 22(e) of the Act is granted with respect
to each Fund until that Fund has liquidated, or until the Commission
rescinds the order granted herein. This order shall be in effect as of
October 8, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-25862 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA / Office of Air and Radiation, OTAQ 2.

OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0377 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. Other Specify:

7. Title : National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand alone Semichemical Pulp Mills 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1805.03 9. Keywords Environmental Protection, Administrative Practice and Procedure, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Substances, Intergovernmental Relations, Pulp and Paper Mills, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement 10. Abstract Respondents are owners or operators of Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand Alone Semichemical pulp mills and must submit notification and reports and maintain records required by the general provisions ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A). Recordkeeping of parameters related to process and air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission limits and/ or standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ G Voluntary b. __ G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 136 b. Total annual responses 136 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 50 % c. Total hours requested 21,528 d. Current OMB inventory 21,528 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 21,528 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 2 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 3 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 5 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 5 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 5 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe) 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jeff Telander Phone: ( 919) 541 5427 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Information Collection Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95