1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Title of the Information Collection. " Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Engine Test Cells/ Stands National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants." The tracking number is EPA ICR number 2066.02.

( b) Short Characterization. This ICR is prepared for a U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) rulemaking developed under authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). The rulemaking amends Title 40, Chapter I, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) by adding a new subpart PPPPP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Engine Test Cells/ Stands. Hereafter, this subpart is referred to as the " engine test cells/ stands NESHAP". The engine test cells/ stands NESHAP includes standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions. Respondents are owners or operators of major source facilities that test uninstalled engines in engine test cells/ stands. An engine test cell/ stand is any apparatus used for testing uninstalled stationary or uninstalled mobile ( motive) engines. An uninstalled engine is defined as an engine being tested in a test cell/ stand that is not installed in, or an integrated part of, the final product. A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more per year.

This information collection applies only to a new or reconstructed affected source located at a major source used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 horsepower ( hp) or more. It is estimated that 18 new or reconstructed major source facilities will be subject to the provisions of this NESHAP in the United States during the three year period after promulgation. These new or reconstructed sources must be in compliance with the requirements of the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP upon startup of the new or reconstructed engine test cell/ stand.

The engine test cells/ stands NESHAP requires a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines to submit a one time Initial Notification. For a new or reconstructed affected source with startup before the effective date of this subpart, the Initial Notification is due not later than 120 calendar days after the effective date of the subpart. For a new or reconstructed affected source with startup on or after the effective date of this subpart, the Initial Notification is due not later than 120 calendar days after the source becomes subject to this subpart.

Owners or operators of a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more are required to submit a semi annual report. To demonstrate compliance, affected sources are allowed to use a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) or a continuous emission monitoring system ( CEMS). For costing, we assumed that facilities would use CPMS, but the discussion includes CEMS as well. If there were no deviations from the emission 2 limitation and the CPMS or CEMS was operating correctly, the report must contain a statement by the responsible official that there was no deviation from the emission limitation and that the CPMS or CEMS was not out of control as defined in § 63.8( c)( 7). For each emission limitation deviation and CPMS or CEMS deviation, the report must contain detailed information on the nature of the deviation( s). All records should be maintained for a period of 5 years and should be maintained at the source for a period of at least 2 years.

Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, the General Provisions, unless the regulation specifies otherwise.

The engine test cells/ stands NESHAP also requires affected sources to submit a Notification of Compliance Status. This notification must be signed by a responsible company official who certifies the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report and certifies that the source has complied with the standards. In addition, the affected sources are allowed to use CEMS or CPMS to monitor compliance with the standard and are required to conduct a performance evaluation of the CEMS or the CPMS. For new or reconstructed engine test cells/ stands with startup before the effective date of this subpart, the performance evaluation of the CEMS or CPMS must be completed within 180 days after the effective date of the subpart. For new or reconstructed engine test cells/ stands with startup on or after the effective date of this subpart, the performance evaluation of the CEMS or CPMS must be completed within 180 days after startup.

The results of the performance evaluation must be submitted to the EPA in the Notification of Compliance Status. For new or reconstructed affected sources, the Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the performance evaluation of the CEMS or CPMS.

Each facility is required to submit all necessary reports to the respondent's Regional, State, local or tribal agency, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine that all sources subject to the NESHAP are achieving the requirements.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection. The EPA is charged under Section 112( d) of the CAA to establish standards to limit HAP emissions from stationary sources. In the Administrator's judgment, the engine test industry causes or contributes significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Engine test facilities were listed as a source category under the fuel combustion industry group, and rocket engine test firing was listed as a source category under the miscellaneous processes industry group in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). These two source categories were combined and renamed engine test cells/ stands in the Federal Register on May 14, 2002 ( 67 FR 34547). 3 Section 114 of the CAA gives the EPA authority to collect data and information necessary to enforce standards established under Section 112 of the CAA. Certain records and reports are necessary to enable the Administrator to: ( 1) identify new or reconstructed sources subject to the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP, and ( 2) ensure that the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP, based on maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for major sources, is being achieved.

( b) Use/ Users of the Data. The EPA's enforcement personnel will use the emissions data collected by each engine test cells/ stands facility to ( 1) identify new or reconstructed HAP emission sources subject to the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP, and ( 2) ensure the proper regulation of HAP emissions.

The records will also be useful in identifying facilities that are out of compliance with the terms of the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication. A search of the EPA's existing standards and ongoing ICRs revealed no duplication of information gathering efforts. However, certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be provided to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB. Since this is a rule related ICR, it is not necessary to solict public comments prior to submittal of this ICR to OMB.

( c) Consultations. Consultations were conducted with various representatives of industry and trade associations during the development of the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP. The following persons provided input during development of the rule:

Name Affiliation Telephone Jim Sumner GE Aircraft Engines ( 513) 672 3986 Chuck Knauss Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman ( 202) 424 7644 Everett Douglas US DoD US Navy ( 619) 545 2914 John McKnight National Marine Manufacturers Association ( 202) 721 1604 Jeff Nobles Delta Air Lines/ ATA ( 404) 714 0063 Cathy Jo Seamon Ford Motor Company ( 313) 390 3799 Mary Snow Cooper DaimlerChryler ( 248) 512 1104 Joe Suchecki Engine Manufacturers Association ( 312) 827 8734 Name Affiliation Telephone 4 Larry Keller Polaris Industries Inc. ( 715) 294 5329 Barbara Barron Watson & Barron ( 919) 828 4402 Craig Dousharm Mercury Marine ( 920) 929 5955 Norman Helgeson Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center ( 805) 982 1335 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection. If results were collected less frequently, there would be little assurance that each source was in continuous compliance with the NESHAP. Also, the EPA's authority to take administrative action would be reduced.

( e) General Guidelines. None of the recordkeeping or reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart PPPPP or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

( f) Confidentiality. Confidential business information will be handled using Agency guidelines on confidentiality, 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).

( g) Sensitive Questions. Information to be reported consists of emission data and other information that are not of a sensitive nature. No sensitive personal or proprietary data are being collected.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes. Respondents are owners or operators of facilities that test uninstalled engines in engine test cells/ stands. Since the government is the process of transitioning from Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes to North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes, both are presented in the following table. Respondents in these SIC/ NAICS codes are only affected if engine test cells/ stands are used for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more and the facility is a major source of HAP emissions. 5 SIC and NAICS Codes of Affected Engine Test Cells/ Stands Facilities SIC Codes NAICS Codes 3511, 3519, 3523, 3524, 3531, 3559, 3566, 3599, 3621, 3711, 3714, 3721, 3724, 3761, 3764, 4226, 4512, 4581, 5541, 7538, 7539, 7699, 8299, 8711, 8731, 8734, 8741, 9661, 9711 333112, 332212, 333120, 333611, 333612, 333618, 333111, 333319, 335312, 336111, 336120, 336112, 336399, 336992, 336312, 336350, 336411, 336412, 336414, 336415, 481111, 488190, 54171, 541380, 611692, 811111, 811118, 811310, 811411, 92711, 92811 This list is not meant to be exhaustive; other SIC/ NAICS Codes could be included if the facility fulfills the definition of an engine test cell/ stand and is considered a major source of HAP emissions.

( b) Information Requested. ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart PPPPP. All new or reconstructed test cells/ stands used for testing uninstalled internal combustion engines located at major source facilities must fulfill these requirements.

Notifications Initial Notification 63.9345( b), 63.5( d), 63.9( b)

Notification of Compliance Status 63.9345( c), 63.9( h)

Notification of Intent to Conduct CEMS or CPMS Performance Evaluation 63.9345( d), 63.8( e)( 2)

Performance Evaluation 63.9306, 63.9307, 63.9320, 63.8( e)

Notification of alternative monitoring method 63.8( f)( 4)

Waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements 63.10( f)

Additional notifications 63.8( e), 63.8( f)( 4), 63.8( f)( 6), 63.9( b), 63.9( g)( 1), 63.9( g)( 2), 63.9( h), 63.9( j)

Reports Semiannual compliance report 63.9340, 63.9350, 63.10( a), 63.10( e) 6 Recordkeeping Emission test results and other data needed to determine compliance with emission limitation 63.9355( a)( 5), 63.9355( a)( 6), 63.9355( a)( 7)

All reports and notifications 63.9355( a)( 1), 63.9350, 63.10( b)

Record of applicability 63.10( b)( 3)

Records for sources with continuous monitoring systems 63.9355( a)( 2), 63.9355( b), 63.9355( c), 63.10( b), 63.10( c)

Records for initial notification and notification of compliance status 63.9355( a)( 1), 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv)

All MACT standards require 5 years of record retention. The first 2 years of records must be kept onsite.

( ii) Respondent Activities Read regulation Notifications Initial Notification Notification of construction/ reconstruction Notification of anticipated startup Notification of actual startup 5. Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities.

Reporting requirements Review regulation Review Initial Notifications ( b) Collection Methodology and Management.

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the monitoring systems ( CEMS or CPMS) are properly installed and operated. Performance evaluation reports are used by the Agency to determine the capability of the source to comply with the emission standard. 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 will be entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) that is maintained and operated by the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS). AIRS is EPA's database 7 for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and 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 five years and maintained at the site for two years.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility.

The recordkeeping and reporting burden is the same for all entities, regardless of size. The requirements are viewed by the agency as the minimum needed to ensure compliance and cannot reduce them further for small entities.

( d) Collection Schedule.

Data collection will begin after the promulgation date of the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP, tentatively scheduled for February 2003. The schedule for reports required by the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP and the General Provisions is detailed below.

The Initial Notification is due not later than 120 calendar days after the promulgation date of the subpart or the startup date of the source, whichever is later, for all new or reconstructed major sources used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines.

The Notification of Compliance Status, including CEMS or CPMS performance evaluation results, must be submitted no later than 30 days following the completion of the performance evaluation.

Major sources of HAP emissions that contain a new or reconstructed affected source used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more are required to submit periodic reports on a semiannual basis.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden.

The major source annual burden estimates for recordkeeping and reporting are presented in Tables 1 through 4. The annual burden estimates are based on an estimated 18 new or reconstructed affected major sources in the engine test cells/ stands industry during the three years after promulgation. Tables 1 through 3 show the cost burden during the first, second and third year after promulgation. Table 4 shows the total costs for the three year period and the average cost and labor requirements per facility. All assumptions made in the labor estimates are included as footnotes to the tables. 8 Labor hours are estimated to be 5,695 technical labor hours, 285 management labor hours, and 569 clerical hours for all 18 major source facilities during the first three years after promulgation.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs Before the costs of recordkeeping and reporting were tabulated, an hourly labor rate was established for the affected industry. The labor rates for technical, management, and clerical staff were calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The hourly rates used for technical, managerial, and clerical were $ 45.04, $ 66.73 and $ 28.14, respectively. These rates include overhead, profit, and all employee benefits. The total impact is estimated to be $ 10,200 per facility. This estimate is based on the assumption that there will be 18 new or reconstructed affected sources used in whole or in part for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more located at major sources beginning operation in the three years after promulgation.

( ii) Estimating Monitoring Costs This subpart assumes the use of a continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) to ensure compliance with the emissions limitations for all new or reconstructed test cells/ stands used for testing internal combustion engines with rated power of 25 hp or more. Monitoring costs include capital costs of the thermocouples, estimated at $ 100 per thermocouple and the assumption that each facility will purchase 5 thermocouples per year. Assuming 18 new or reconstructed facilities will be required to purchase this equipment, the total capital investment is $ 18,000 during the first three years after promulgation. These monitoring costs are included in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.

Because the information collection requirements were developed as an incidental part of the engine test cells/ stands NESHAP, no costs can be attributed to the development of the information collection requirements.

Because recordkeeping and reporting requirements on the part of the respondents are required under section 112 of the CAA, no operational costs will be incurred by the Federal government. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS operated and maintained by the EPA's OAQPS, with the result that no Federal costs can be directly attributed to the ICR.

Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur incidentally as part of the periodic inspection of sources that is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program and, therefore, is not attributable to the ICR. The only costs that the Federal government will incur are user costs associated with the analysis of the reported information, as shown in 5( a). Labor rates and associated costs are based on 9 2000 labor rates from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management ( OPM). The estimated wage rates are $ 67.44/ hr ( GS 15/ 3 level) for management, $ 40.80/ hr ( GS 12/ 3 level) for technical, and $ 22.99/ hr ( GS 6/ 3 level) for clerical. Again, for this analysis, it is assumed that each labor hour is composed of 5 percent management, 85 percent technical, and 10 percent administrative, resulting in an hourly rate of $ 46.47/ hr. This hourly rate includes a factor of 1.6 to account for employee benefits.

Using the labor rates and applying them to the activities shown in 5( a), the total agency burden is $ 37,500 for the first three years following promulgation. All calculations are shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8. The tables include footnotes for all assumptions used.

( d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden Cost.

The number of new or reconstructed major sources subject to MACT Subpart PPPPP is estimated to be 18. The total recordkeeping and reporting burden for the 18 new or reconstructed major sources is estimated to total $ 397,000 for the three years following promulgation.

( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables.

Please refer to Tables 1 through 5.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden.

The change in burden is due to a change in the definition of an affected source. This new definition changed the estimate of new or reconstructed sources from 37 to 18. This resulted in a decreased industry burden.

( g) Burden Statement.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 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 currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including 10 the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2002 0040, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the OMB Control Number 2060 0483 and EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2002 0040) . 11 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 12 Table 1. Estimated Burden to Industry to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for First Year after Promulgation Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H) Cost,$

( a)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read regulation ( b) 4 1 4 6 24 1.2 2.4 1,229 B. Notifications Initial Notification 2 1 2 6 12 0.6 1.2 614 Notification of construction/ reconstruction ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 0.6 1.2 614 Notification of anticipated startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 0.6 1.2 614 Notification of actual startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 0.6 1.2 614 TOTAL ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST ( R& R) 72 4 7 3,686 ANNUAL COSTS FOR MONITORING EQUIPMENT ( e, f) 3,000 AVERAGE ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST PER FACILITY ( R& R) ( g) 12 1 1 1,114 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 45.04, management at $ 66.73, and clerical at $ 28.14.

( b ) Assumes 1/ 3 of all 18 new major source facilities will come on line in this year and all will read the regulation.

( c) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 3 " Burden of NSPS and NESHAP Notification Reports, Excess Emission Reports and Recordkeeping" ( Volume X, Section 2.2).

( d) Assumes 18 facilities will comply over the three year period or 6 per year.

( e) Assumes that 6 new major source facilities coming on line in this year will purchase thermocouples before conducting the performance and monitoring evaluations.

( f) Assuming the use of thermocouples for parameter monitoring at a cost of $ 100 per thermocouple and purchasing 5 per year.

( g) Assumes 6 facilities. 13 Table 2. Estimated Burden to Industry to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Second Year after Promulgation Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H) Cost,$

( a)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read regulation ( b) 4 1 4 6 24 1 2 1,229 B. Notifications Initial Notification 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of construction/ reconstruction ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of anticipated startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of actual startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 C. Required activities Initial performance evaluation ( d, e, f) 330 1 330 6 1980 99 198 101,357 Monitoring demonstration ( d, e, f) 100 1 100 6 600 30 60 30,714 Repeat of performance evaluation ( d, e, f, g) 330 1 330 1.2 396 20 40 20,271 Maintain monitoring records on a weekly basis ( c) 1.5 50 75 6 450 23 45 23,036 D. Write semi annual report Write compliance status report ( c) 4 2 8 6 48 2 5 2,433 Write performance evaluation report ( d, f, h) 16 1 16 6 96 5 10 4,914 Write deviation report ( c, i) 16 2 32 .06 2 0 0 98 TOTAL ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST ( R& R) 3644 182 364 186,510 ANNUAL COSTS FOR MONITORING EQUIPMENT ( j, k, l) 6,000 AVERAGE ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST PER FACILITY ( R& R) ( m) 304 15 30 16,042 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 45.04, management at $ 66.73, and clerical at $ 28.14.

( b) Assumes 1/ 3 of all 18 new major source facilities will come on line in this year and all will read the regulation.

( c) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 3 " Burden of NSPS and NESHAP Notification Reports, Excess Emission Reports and Recordkeeping" ( Volume X, Section 2.2).

( d) Assumes 18 facilities will comply over the three year period or 6 per year.

( e) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 4 " Burden of Performance Tests and Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) Demonstrations" ( Volume X,

Section 2.2).

( f) Assumes performance evaluations and monitoring demonstrations will occur every 5 years for the 6 facilities.

( g) Assumes 20% of performance evaluations will be failures, requiring repeats.

( h) Assumes one performance evaluation for each facility.

( i) Assumes 1% of 18 new major source test sources will be out of compliance. 14 ( j) Assumes that 6 new major source facilities coming on line in this year will purchase thermocouples before conducting the performance and monitoring evaluations.

( k) Assumes that the 6 new major source facilities coming on line last year will also purchase thermocouples.

( l) Assuming the use of thermocouples for parameter monitoring at a cost of $ 100 per thermocouple and purchasing 5 per year.

( m) Assumes 12 facilities. 15 Table 3. Estimated Burden to Industry to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Third Year after Promulgation Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H) Cost,$

( a)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read regulation ( b) 4 1 4 6 24 1 2 1,229 B. Notifications Initial Notification 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of construction/ reconstruction ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of anticipated startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 Notification of actual startup ( c, d) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 614 C. Required activities Initial performance evaluation ( d, e, f) 330 1 330 6 1980 99 198 101,357 Monitoring demonstration ( d, e, f) 100 1 100 6 600 30 60 30,714 Repeat of performance evaluation ( d, e, f, g) 330 1 330 1.2 396 20 40 20,271 Maintain monitoring records on a weekly basis ( c) 1.5 50 75 6 450 23 45 23,036 D. Write semi annual report Write compliance status report ( c) 4 2 8 12 96 5 10 4,865 Write performance evaluation report ( d, f, h) 16 1 16 6 96 5 10 4,914 Write deviation report ( c, i) 16 2 32 .12 4 0 0 197 TOTAL ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST ( R& R) 3694 185 369 189,040 ANNUAL COSTS FOR MONITORING EQUIPMENT ( j, k, l) 9,000 AVERAGE ONE TIME BURDEN AND COST PER FACILITY ( R& R) ( m) 205 10 21 11,002 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 45.04, management at $ 66.73, and clerical at $ 28.14.

( b) Assumes 1/ 3 of all 18 new major source facilities will come on line in this year and all will read the regulation.

( c) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 3 " Burden of NSPS and NESHAP Notification Reports, Excess Emission Reports and Recordkeeping" ( Volume X, Section 2.2).

( d) Assumes 18 facilities will comply over the three year period or 6 per year.

( e) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 4 " Burden of Performance Tests and Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) Demonstrations" ( Volume X,

Section 2.2).

( f) Assumes performance evaluations and monitoring demonstrations will occur every 5 years for the 6 facilities.

( g) Assumes 20% of performance evaluations will be failures, requiring repeats.

( h) Assumes one performance evaluation for each facility.

( i) Assumes 1% of 18 new major source test sources will be out of compliance. 16 ( j) Assumes that 6 new major source facilities coming on line in this year will purchase thermocouples before conducting the performance and monitoring evaluations.

( k) Assumes that the 6 new major source facilities coming on line last year will also purchase thermocouples.

( l) Assuming the use of thermocouples for parameter monitoring at a cost of $ 100 per thermocouple and purchasing 5 per year.

( m) Assumes 18 facilities. 17 Table 4. Estimated Total Burden to Industry to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Year Technical hours Management hours Clerical hours Total hours Labor costs Capital costs Total costs Year 1 72 4 7 83 $ 3,686 $ 3,000 $ 6,686 Year 2 3,643 182 364 4,190 $ 186,510 $ 6,000 $ 192,510 Year 3 3,694 185 369 4,248 $ 189,040 $ 9,000 $ 198,040 Totals 8,521 $ 379,236 $ 18,000 $ 397,236 Table 5. Estimated Recurrent Burden and Cost to the Agency to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Engine Test Cells/ Stands NESHAP during the First Year After Promulgation Date Burden item ( A)

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

EPA hours per facility per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Facilities per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H)

Cost, $

( a)

Reporting requirements Review regulation ( b) 2 1 2 1.00 2 0 0 93 Review waivers ( c) 2 1 2 0.00 0 0 0 0 Review Initial Notification 2 1 2 6.00 12 1 1 558 ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE 14 1 1 651 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES ( d) 0 AVERAGE TOTAL COST = ANNUAL AVERAGE COST + ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES 651 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 40.80, management at $ 67.44, and clerical at $ 22.99.

( b) Assumes the Agency will review the regulation once prior to reviewing the Initial Notifications.

( c) Assumes no new or reconstructed major source facilities will apply for a waiver.

( d) Assumes performance evaluations require 4 days per facility and enforcement visits require 2 days per facility. 18 Table 6. Estimated Recurrent Burden and Cost to the Agency to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Engine Test Cells/ Stands NESHAP during the Second Year After Promulgation Date Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

EPA hours per facility per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Facilitie s per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H)

Cost, $

( a)

1. Attend performance/ monitoring demonstration ( b, c) 32 1 32 6 192 10 19 8,922 2. Repeat performance/ monitoring evaluation A. Retesting preparation ( b, d) 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 558 B. Attend retesting ( b, c) 32 1 32 1 32 2 3 1,487 3. Deviations   enforcement activities ( f, g) 16 1 16 1.2 19 1 2 892 4. Reporting requirements A. Review regulation ( h) 2 2 4 6 24 1 2 1,115 B. Review waivers ( i) 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review reports and notifications i. Review Initial Notification 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 558 ii. Review compliance status report ( j) 2 2 4 4.8 19 1 2 892 iii. Review performance evaluation report ( k, l) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 558 iv. Review deviation report ( g) 2 2 4 1.2 5 0 0 223 ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE 327 16 33 15,205 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES ( m) 2,160 AVERAGE TOTAL COST = ANNUAL AVERAGE COST + ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES 17,365 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 40.80, management at $ 67.44, and clerical at $ 22.99.

These costs are based on 2000 wages listed by U. S. Office of Personnel Management for GS Level 12, Step 5; GS Level 15, Step 5; and GS Level 7, Step 5, respectively.

( b) Assumes 1 CEMS or CPMS per facility ( c) Assumes EPA will attend all performance evaluations for 6 facilities ( d) Assumes 20% of facilities will fail the initial performance evaluation and all will repeat it ( assumed one).

( e) Assumes EPA will attend all retests ( assumed one).

( f) Assumes an EPA follow up visit of 2 days per deviation report ( g) Assumes 20% of 6 major sources will be out of compliance.

( h) Assumes Agency will review regulation once per facility.

( i) Assumes no new or reconstructed major source facilities will apply for a waiver. 19 ( j) Assumes 80% of 6 major source facilities will be in compliance.

( k) Assumes one performance evaluation per facility.

( l) Assumes 18 facilities will comply or 6 per year.

( m) Assumes performance evaluations require 4 days per facility and enforcement visits require 2 days per facility:

[ Travel costs= [( 1 person x (# of facilities)/ yr x 4 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of facilities) round trips/ yr)] +

[( 1 person x (# of enforcement facilities)/ yr x 2 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of enforcement facilities) round trips/ yr)] 20 Table 7. Estimated Recurrent Burden and Cost to the Agency to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Engine Test Cells/ Stands NESHAP during the Third Year After Promulgation Date Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

EPA hours per facility per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Facilitie s per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H)

Cost, $

( a)

1. Attend performance/ monitoring demonstration ( b, c) 32 1 32 6 192 10 19 8,922 2. Repeat performance/ monitoring evaluation A. Retesting preparation ( b, d) 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 558 B. Attend retesting ( b, c) 32 1 32 1 32 2 3 1,487 3. Deviations   enforcement activities ( f, g) 16 1 16 2.4 38 2 4 1,784 4. Reporting requirements A. Review regulation ( h) 2 2 4 6 24 1 2 1,115 B. Review waivers ( i) 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review reports and notifications i. Review Initial Notification 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 558 ii. Review compliance status report ( j) 2 2 4 9.6 38 2 4 1,784 iii. Review performance evaluation report ( k, l) 2 1 2 6 12 1 1 558 iv. Review deviation report ( g) 2 2 4 2.4 10 0 1 446 ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE 370 19 37 17,213 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES ( m) 2,280 AVERAGE TOTAL COST = ANNUAL AVERAGE COST + ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES 19,493 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 40.80, management at $ 67.44, and clerical at $ 22.99.

These costs are based on 2000 wages listed by U. S. Office of Personnel Management for GS Level 12, Step 5; GS Level 15, Step 5; and GS Level 7, Step 5, respectively.

( b) Assumes 1 CEMS or CPMS per facility ( c) Assumes EPA will attend all performance evaluations for 6 facilities.

( d) Assumes 20% of facilities will fail the initial performance evaluation and all will repeat it ( assumed one).

( e) Assumes EPA will attend all retests ( assumed one).

( f) Assumes an EPA follow up visit of 2 days per deviation report ( g) Assumes 20% of 12 major sources will be out of compliance.

( h) Assumes Agency will review regulation once per facility.

( i) Assumes no new or reconstructed major source facilities will apply for a waiver.

( j) Assumes 80% of 12 major source facilities will be in compliance. 21 ( k) Assumes one performance evaluation per facility.

( l) Assumes 18 facilities will comply or 6 per year.

( m) Assumes performance evaluations require 4 days per facility and enforcement visits require 2 days per facility:

[ Travel costs= [( 1 person x (# of facilities)/ yr x 4 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of facilities) round trips/ yr)] +

[( 1 person x (# of enforcement facilities)/ yr x 2 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of enforcement facilities) round trips/ yr)] 22 Table 8. Estimated Total Burden to Agency to Implement Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Year Technical hours Management hours Clerical hours Total hours Labor costs Travel costs Total costs Year 1 14 1 1 16 $ 651 $ 0 $ 651 Year 2 327 16 33 376 $ 15,205 $ 2,160 $ 17,365 Year 3 370 19 37 426 $ 17,213 $ 2,280 $ 19,493 Totals 818 $ 33,069 $ 4,440 $ 37,509 23 ATTACHMENT 1 Burden and Cost of Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements For the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Years Following the Effective Date 24 BURDEN AND COST OF MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE The Information Collected    Respondent Activities and Agency Activities ( a) Respondent Activities As shown in the Supporting Statement, there are activities that occur in the three years between the effective date and the compliance date of the regulation. These include the Initial Notifications and buying monitoring equipment.

In the three years following the compliance date, there are recurrent activities that are required of the respondents. These include compiling and maintaining records of monitoring, writing semiannual reports, writing compliance status reports, and writing deviation reports ( if necessary).

( b) Agency Activities As shown in the Supporting Statement, the agency burden includes the review of Initial Notifications, performance/ monitoring evaluation reports, compliance reports, and conducting enforcement visits during the three years between the effective date and the compliance date. During the three years following the compliance date, the agency burden includes recurrent activities such as responding to deviations through enforcement activities, reviewing the regulation, and reviewing reports.

2. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs ( i) Estimating respondent burden and labor costs.

The labor rates for technical, management, and clerical staff were calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The hourly rates used for technical, managerial, and clerical were $ 45.04, $ 66.73 and $ 28.14, respectively. These rates include overhead, profit, and all employee benefits.

Since the respondent activities are recurrent for years four, five, and six, the information is shown in Table 1, along with all assumptions made. For these three years, the total burden to the 18 major sources is estimated to be $ 175,000 annually. The labor requirements total 3,900 hours per year.

( ii) Estimating capital costs.

The only capital costs estimated for the three years following the compliance date are the purchase of thermocouples for parameter monitoring. 25 ( b) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs Labor rates and associated costs are based on 2000 labor rates from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management ( OPM). The estimated wage rates are $ 67.44/ hr ( GS 15/ 3 level) for management, $ 40.80/ hr ( GS 12/ 3 level) for technical, and $ 22.99/ hr ( GS 6/ 3 level) for clerical. These hourly rates include a factor of 1.6 to account for employee benefits.

Since the agency activities are recurrent for years four, five, and six, the information is shown in Table 2, along with all assumptions made. For these three years, the total agency burden is estimated to be $ 17,300 annually. The labor requirements total 370 hours annually. 26 Table 1. ESTIMATED RECURRENT BURDEN AND COST TO INDUSTRY TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINE TEST CELLS/ STANDS NESHAP Burden item ( A)

Personhours per occurrence ( B) Number of occurrences per year ( C)

Person hours per respondent per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical person hours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management person hours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G) Clerical person hours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H) Cost,$

( a)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read regulation ( b) 4 1 4 18 72 4 7 3,686 B. Required activities Initial performance evaluation ( d, e) 330 1 330 3.6 1,188 59 119 60,814 Monitoring demonstration ( d, e) 100 1 100 3.6 360 18 36 18,429 Repeat of performance evaluation ( d, e, f) 330 1 330 0.7 238 12 24 12,163 Maintain monitoring records on a weekly basis ( c) 1.5 50 75 18.0 1,350 68 135 69,107 C. Write semi annual report Write compliance status report ( c) 4 2 8 18 144 7 14 7,371 Write performance evaluation report ( d, g) 16 1 16 3.6 58 3 6 2,949 Write deviation report ( c, h) 16 2 32 0.18 23 0 1 295 TOTAL RECURRENT BURDEN AND COST ( R& R) 3,415 171 341 174,814 ANNUAL COSTS FOR MONITORING EQUIPMENT ( i) 9,000 AVERAGE RECURRENT COSTS PER FACILITY ( MONITORING and R& R) 10,212 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 45.04, management at $ 66.73, and clerical at $ 28.14.

( b) Assumes all 18 new major source facilities will read the regulation.

( c) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 3 " Burden of NSPS and NESHAP Notification Reports, Excess Emission Reports and Recordkeeping".

( d) Assumes 18 facilities will comply every five years or 3.6 per year .

( e) Person hours per occurrence are from ESD manual Table 4 " Burden of Performance Tests and Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) Demonstrations".

( f) Assumes 20% of performance evaluations will be failures, requiring repeats.

( g) Assumes one evaluation for each facility.

( h) Assumes 1% of 18 new major sources will be out of compliance.

( i) Assuming the use of thermocouples for parameter monitoring at a cost of $ 100 per thermocouple and purchasing 5 per year. 27 Table 2. ESTIMATED RECURRENT BURDEN AND COST TO THE AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGINE TEST CELLS/ STANDS NESHAP Burden item ( A)

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

EPA hours per facility per year ( C = A x B) ( D) Facilities per year ( E)

Technical personhours per year ( E = C x D) ( F) Management personhours per year ( F = E x 0.05) ( G)

Clerical personhours per year ( G = E x 0.1) ( H)

Cost, $

( a)

1. Attend monitoring demonstration ( b, c) 32 1 32 3.6 115 6 12 5,353 2. Repeat performance evaluation A. Retesting preparation ( b, d) 12 1 12 1 12 1 1 558 B. Attend retesting ( b, e) 32 1 32 1 32 2 3 1,487 3. Deviations enforcement activities ( f, g) 16 1 16 3.6 58 3 6 2,677 4. Reporting requirements A. Review regulation 2 2 4 6 24 1 2 1,115 B. Review waivers ( h) 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 C. Review semi annual reports Review compliance status report ( i) 2 2 4 14.4 58 3 6 2,677 Review performance evaluation report ( j, k) 2 1 2 3.60 7 0 1 335 Review deviation report ( g) 2 2 4 3.6 14 1 1 669 ANNUAL AVERAGE TOTAL BURDEN AND COST ( SALARY) NATIONWIDE 320 16 32 14,871 ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES ( l) 2,400 AVERAGE TOTAL COST = ANNUAL AVERAGE COST + ANNUAL AVERAGE TRAVEL EXPENSES 320 16 32 17,271 ( a) Costs are based on the following hourly rates: technical at $ 40.80, management at $ 67.44, and clerical at $ 22.99. These costs are based on 2000 wages listed by U. S.

Office of Personnel Management for GS Level 12, Step 5; GS Level 15, Step 5; and GS Level 7, Step 5, respectively.

( b) Assumes 1 CEMS or CPMS per facility ( c) Assumes EPA will attend 20% of performance evaluations for 3.6 facilities ( 18 every 5 years)

( d) Assumes 20% of facilities will fail the initial performance evaluation and all will repeat it ( assumed one)

( e) Assumes EPA will attend 25% of the retests ( assumed one)

( f) Assumes an EPA follow up visit of 2 days per deviation report ( g) Assumes 20% of 18 major sources will be out of compliance.

( h) Assumes no new or reconstructed major source facilities will apply for a waiver.

( i) Assumes 80% of 18 major source facilities will be in compliance.

( j) Assumes one performance evaluation per facility.

( k) Assumes 18 facilities will comply over a 5 year period or 3.6 per year.

( l) Assumes performance evaluations require 4 days per facility and enforcement visits require 2 days per facility:

[ Travel costs= [( 1 person x (# of facilities)/ yr x 4 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of facilities) round trips/ yr)] +

[( 1 person x (# of enforcement facilities)/ yr x 2 d/ facility x $ 50/ d) + ($ 500/ round trip x (# of enforcement facilities) round trips/ yr)]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73937-73940]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29902]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0326; FRL-9371-5]

Spirodiclofen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation modifies currently established tolerances for
residues of spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate in or on apple, wet
pomace and grape, raisin to 2.4 and 6.0 parts per million (ppm)
respectively, and deletes the tolerance for grape juice. Bayer
CropScience requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 12, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 11, 2013,
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-2012-0326, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Kumar, Registration Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8291; 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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/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-2012-0326, 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 11, 2013. 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-2012-0326, 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 Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), 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
1F7952) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.608 be amended by modifying tolerances for residues of the
insecticide spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-
oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate, in or on apple, wet
pomace and grape, raisin from 2.0 and 4.0 parts per million (ppm)
respectively, to 2.4 and 6.0 ppm respectively, and by deleting the
tolerance for grape juice. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.

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 spirodiclofen including
exposure resulting from the

tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with spirodiclofen follows.
    In 2005, EPA assessed the use of spirodiclofen on citrus fruit,
grape, pome fruit, stone fruit, and tree nut crops and reviewed the
residue chemistry data submitted in support of these uses. Apple and
grape processing studies were required as conditional to these
registrations. These processing studies were subsequently submitted by
Bayer CropScience, and reviewed by the Agency in a memo dated October
25, 2007, posted to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0326. In this memo, EPA
concluded that the tolerances for wet apple pomace and raisin grape
need to be revised as indicated above, and the tolerance for grape
juice is no longer necessary.
    In the most recent spirodiclofen tolerance rulemaking published in
the Federal Register of May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24428) (FRL-8820-4), EPA
assessed risk from aggregate exposure to spirodiclofen assuming that
exposure occurred in wet apple pomace and raisins at the levels of the
revised wet apple pomace and raisin grape tolerances. In that action,
EPA determined that aggregate risk from exposure to spirodiclofen was
safe. Based upon the 2010 spirodiclofen rulemaking and the other
information discussed above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to spirodiclofen
residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, a liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, 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 a MRL for spirodiclofen.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the established tolerances for residues of
spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-
yl 2,2-dimethylbutanoate, in or on apple, wet pomace and grape, raisin
are amended from 2.0 and 4.0 ppm to 2.4 and 6.0 ppm respectively, and
the tolerance for grape juice is deleted.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.608 revise paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; in the
table in paragraph (a)(1) remove the entry for ``Grape juice,'' and
revise the entries for

``Apple, wet pomace'' and ``Grape, raisin'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.608  Spirodiclofen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of
spirodiclofen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities listed below. Compliance with the following tolerance
levels is to be determined by measuring only spirodiclofen, 3-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-2-oxo-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-3-en-4-yl 2,2-
dimethylbutanoate.

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

                                * * * * *
Apple, wet pomace..........................................          2.4

                                * * * * *
Grape, raisin..............................................          6.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-29902 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 14294-14297]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57461; File No. SR-NSCC-2007-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Provide a
New Alternative Investments Products Service

March 10, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on July 17, 2007, National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and on February 19, 2008,
amended the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III
below, which items have been prepared primarily by NSCC. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NSCC is proposing to establish a new Alternative Investment
Products service (``AIP Service''), which would be a processing
platform for alternative investment products such as hedge funds, funds
of hedge funds, commodities pools, managed futures, and real estate
investment trusts (``REITs'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this rule filing is to amend NSCC's Rules in order
that NSCC may provide its proposed AIP Service, which would be a
processing platform for alternative investment products such as hedge
funds, funds of hedge funds, commodities pools, managed futures, and
REITs. Such products are more fully described below in the section
titled ``Alternative Investment Products.''
(1) Summary of AIP Service
    The AIP Service would provide for processing of information
relating to transactions in alternative investment products and for
settlement of related payments (``AIP Payments''). It would facilitate,
among other things, processing activities such as subscriptions and
redemptions, distributions, position reporting, and account
maintenance. Activities that would be supported by the AIP Service are
more fully described below in the section titled ``Scope of AIP
Service.''
    Settlement of AIP Payments through NSCC would be done on a
prefunded basis. NSCC would simply pass-through AIP Payments from AIP
members to their respective contraside AIP members without netting or
without guarantying payment in the event of contraside default. NSCC
would not be liable to make payment to an AIP member in the event of a
default in payment by the contraside AIP member. Settlement of AIP
Payments (``AIP Settlement'') would be segregated from all other money
settlements at NSCC. NSCC would have no exposure to credit risk as a
result of the operation of the AIP Settlement. AIP Settlement is more
fully described below in the section titled ``AIP Settlement.''
    Participation in the AIP Service would be governed by NSCC's Rules
and procedures applicable to the AIP Service. Each user of the AIP
Service (``AIP Member'') would be required to enter into an AIP
membership agreement with NSCC that would govern its use of the AIP
Service. Entities eligible for membership would include entities
subject to regulation under U.S. federal or state laws such as
registered broker-dealers, investment advisers, banks, and insurance
companies. Because of the unique processing and distribution features
of alternative investment products and because NSCC would have no
exposure to the credit risk of AIP Members and would have no liability
to make payments in the event of an AIP Member's AIP Settlement
default, entities that are not required to register under applicable
U.S. federal or state law and entities organized under applicable law
outside of the U.S. may also be eligible to become AIP Members.
Membership in the AIP Service is more fully described below in the
section titled ``AIP Members.''
    NSCC developed the concept and functionality for the AIP Service at
the request of and in consultation with industry participants, many of
which were NSCC members in different capacities using other NSCC
services. Some of these interested parties committed to become pilot
subscribers to the proposed AIP Service and committed to assist NSCC in
funding the launch of the AIP Service. These parties are more fully
described below in the section titled ``AIP Pilot Group.''
(2) Alternative Investment Products
    Alternative investment products are typically illiquid, pooled
investment products that are exempt from registration under the
Security Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that
are offered through private placements to high net worth individuals
and institutional investors such as pension funds.
    Alternative investment products may be placed and held by an end
investor through a direct relationship with the issuer or manufacturer
of an alternative investment product or through an entity acting on
behalf of an issuer or manufacturer (called the ``AIP Manufacturer''
for purposes of NSCC Rules). They may also be placed and held through a
distribution channel such as a registered broker-dealer that
facilitates transactions as a processing contraparty to the AIP
Manufacturer (called the ``AIP Distributor'' for

purposes of NSCC Rules). Alternative investment products are not
generally traded in the secondary market. In this respect, the
distribution for alternative investment products is similar to the
distribution of mutual funds on NSCC's Fund/SERV system. Alternative
investment products have processing characteristics and risk profiles
that differ from those of mutual funds, and those differences would be
taken into account and reflected in the functionality of the AIP
Service and in NSCC Rules and procedures.
    Increasingly, investors and their advisers are including
alternative investment products as part of their balanced portfolios.
The alternative investment products market represents over $1 trillion
in assets and continues to grow. Despite the large asset base,
processing remains extremely manual using methods such as delivery of
hard copy documents, transmission of information by fax, email
messages, telephone calls, and emailed spreadsheets. The lack of
automation and standardized, centralized processing is inefficient,
prolongs transaction processing time, introduces high costs per
transaction, and increases the likelihood of errors--factors that
increase in importance as the volume of transactions increases as it
has in recent years.
(3) AIP Pilot Group
    Accordingly, several industry participants (many of which were
members of NSCC) approached NSCC to explore whether NSCC services could
bring automation and standardization to the alternative investment
product industry analogous to that which NSCC's Mutual Fund Services
has provided to the mutual fund industry. Mutual funds and alternative
investment products frequently share similar distribution channels and
are frequently both included in an investor's portfolio for which a
financial intermediary consolidates asset reporting and servicing.
    NSCC solicited its members to assess industry interest. A pilot
group of interested broker-dealers, alternative product manufacturers,
and fund administrators was formed to determine the feasibility of NSCC
providing such a service and to assist in the development of the
business requirements and functional specifications for such a service.
Some members of the pilot group committed to assist in the costs of
development of the service through payment of a fixed amount that would
be applied to their respective usage fees when the service was in
production. Consistent with this commitment to support the costs of
launching the service, NSCC agreed to consult with the members of the
pilot group in refining and enhancing the necessary functionality for
the service. The functionality for the initial scope of the AIP Service
has been developed and is described below in the section titled ``Scope
of AIP Service.''
(4) Eligible AIP Products
    Alternative investment products processed through NSCC's AIP
Service (``Eligible AIP Products'') would initially include the types
of products referenced above (i.e., hedge funds, funds of hedge funds,
commodities pools, managed futures, and REITs). Additional products
could be added in the initial phase or from time to time as requested
by industry participants and as approved by NSCC.\3\ Eligible AIP
Products would include those registered with the Commission or those
not required to be registered. An AIP Manufacturer that submits an
alternative investment product for processing through the AIP Service
would represent and warrant to NSCC that the offer and sale of the
investment product complies with applicable law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Due to the nature of alternative investment products, NSCC
retains the right to refuse to process a specific product or type of
product through the AIP Service or to require that it no longer be
processed through the AIP service if NSCC deems it to be in the
interests of NSCC or its members to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) AIP Members
    The following type of entities would be eligible to become AIP
Manufacturers or AIP Distributors:
    (i) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act or subject to
regulation by the appropriate financial services regulator in its home
jurisdiction;
    (ii) A bank or trust company under supervision of federal or state
banking authorities or a non-U.S. bank subject to regulation in its
home jurisdiction;
    (iii) An investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act or an issuer (structured as a fund or pooled investment vehicle)
that is not required to register thereunder;
    (iv) An investment adviser as defined under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 regardless of whether it is registered under the Investment
Advisors Act or is exempt from registration;
    (v) A commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor as
defined under the Commodity Exchange Act regardless of whether the
commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor is registered
pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act or is exempt from registration
thereunder;
    (vi) An insurance company regulated under state insurance law or a
non-U.S. insurance company subject to regulation by the appropriate
insurance regulator in its home jurisdiction;
    (vii) With respect to an AIP Manufacturer, an entity engaged under
contract to provide administrative services to one or more Eligible AIP
Products; or
    (viii) An entity that does not qualify as one of the above entities
but that has demonstrated to the Board of Directors of NSCC that its
business and capabilities are such that it could reasonably expect
material benefit from direct access to the AIP Service.
    Because AIP Settlement would be prefunded and because NSCC would be
insulated from exposure to the credit risk of AIP Members and would
have no liability to make payments in the event of an AIP Member's AIP
Settlement default, there are no financial requirements for
participation in the AIP Service. Members would be required to meet
NSCC's operational requirements and general standards applicable to
competency for membership and to meet such other requirements as NSCC
may establish from time to time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NSCC's general standards applicable to competency are
designed to screen for any action or condition of an applicant or
member that could, in the reasonable judgment of NSCC, present undue
risk to NSCC or its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Scope of AIP Services
    The AIP Service would support communication of information and
settlement of AIP Payments between the AIP Manufacturer and the AIP
Distributor in order to facilitate the processing of subscriptions and
purchases, tenders and redemptions, dividends and distributions,
commissions and fees, position reporting, product information, account
maintenance, automated transmission of imaged documents, and such other
actions as NSCC may determine from time to time. The AIP Service would
provide AIP Members with the ability to transmit data in connection
with transactions whether the payments are made outside of NSCC or
through the AIP Service.
    As with all NSCC Services, NSCC would not be responsible for the
completeness or accuracy of data transmitted through the AIP Services
or for any errors, omissions, or delays which may occur in the absence
of gross negligence on the part of NSCC.

    Fees for the use of the AIP Service have not yet been established
and would be the subject of a subsequent proposed rule change filed
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act if this proposed rule filing is
approved.
(7) AIP Settlement
    AIP Settlement would be in same day funds over fedwire and would be
segregated from all other settlement payments at NSCC. Unless otherwise
approved by NSCC, AIP Members would be required to appoint a settling
bank (``AIP Settling Bank'') for purposes of settlement similar to NSCC
settlement procedures for its other money settlements.
    NSCC would maintain credit balances and debit balances for each AIP
Member to which NSCC would post gross credits and gross debits for
settlement on the date designated by the AIP Member (``Settlement
Date''). AIP Settlement would be on a gross basis meaning that the
credit balance of an AIP Member would not be netted against its debit
balance. If NSCC does not receive funds from an AIP Member in the
amount of the debit balance by the requisite time on the Settlement
Date, NSCC would reduce the corresponding settlement credit balances of
the AIP Members that are the contrasides to the AIP Member that did not
pay its gross debit balance. Nonpayment of a debit balance would not be
deemed a payment default under NSCC Rules, but NSCC may establish fees
for late payment or nonpayment and may establish a threshold number of
instances of late payment or nonpayment which would cause other
sanctions, including NSCC's ceasing to act for such an AIP Member.
    After receipt of an AIP Member's debit balance from the AIP
Member's AIP Settling Bank on Settlement Date, NSCC would transfer to
the AIP Settling Bank(s) of the contraside AIP Member(s) the settlement
credit balance(s). NSCC's payment would include gross credit balances
which may have been reduced to reflect the reversal of any credits with
respect to debit balance amounts that were not paid by a contraside AIP
Member.
    Use of NSCC's AIP Service would provide the alternative investment
product industry with the ability to process transactions and to settle
funds on a centralized, fully redundant platform that would provide
more robust business continuity in the event of interruption to
processing on a primary system, better audit trails on transactions,
lower costs, and fewer errors and delays than are currently the case
through manual processing.
    Settlement on the basis of gross debits and gross credits without
offsets insulates NSCC from any financial risks associated with
Eligible AIP Products and AIP Members. Because NSCC's obligation to pay
a credit balance would be conditioned upon receipt of the funds by NSCC
from the contraside AIP Member, NSCC would not bear the risk that an
AIP Member may default at settlement.
(8) AIP Document Transmission
    The AIP Service would automate the transmission of imaged hard-copy
documents (``paper workflow'') between AIP Manufacturers and AIP
Distributors. The alternative investment industry has a number of
investment instruments that are private or are traded outside of the
normal processes and that require the exchange of documentation.
Typically, the parties may exchange up to forty pages of hard-copy
documents. Subaccount documentation is typically sent for both initial
and subsequent subscriptions, depending on the requirements of the
alternative investment product, and for tender offers. The paper
workflow component of the AIP Service would allow parties to scan and
convert documents to a file format such as portable document format
(``PDF'') file for transmission with or without a pending transaction
message.
(9) Proposed Changes to NSCC Rules
    Under the proposed rule change, a new Rule 53, ``Alternative
Investment Product Services and Members,'' would be added to NSCC's
Rules, and additional confirming changes would be made elsewhere
throughout NSCC's Rules as needed to provide consistency with the new
Rule 53.
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because by facilitating the transmission of
standardized information for alternative investment products on a
centralized communications platform and by automating money settlements
through a centralized location in the same day funds, the proposed AIP
Service would provide increased efficiencies and reduced risks that are
typically associated with manual processing. As such, the proposed
changes would help remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period: (i) As the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2007-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-12. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NSCC and on NSCC's Web site at http://www.dtcc.com/
downloads/legal/rule_filings/2007/nscc/2007-12.pdf. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-12 and should be
submitted on or before April 7, 2008.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5279 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62357]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19464]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0067; FRL-10578-07-OCSPP]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses (July 2023)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0067, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Registration Division
(RD) (7505T), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected]. The mailing address for each contact person is
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each application
summary.

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).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

Notice of Receipt--New Uses

    EPA Registration Number: 1015-79. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2023-0337. Applicant: Douglas Products and Packaging Company; 1550 East
Old 210 Highway, Liberty, MO 65068. Active ingredient: Sulfuryl
fluoride. Product type: Fumigant. Proposed use: New use, non-food;
indoor use on tobacco. Contact: RD.
    EPA Registration Numbers: 4787-55, 4787-61, 279-3588. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0258. Applicant: Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4) Project Headquarters, NC State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. Active ingredient:
Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Tropical and
subtropical, small fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23A; cottonseed
subgroup 20C; crop group 4-16, leafy vegetables; leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B; fruit, pome, group 11-10; fruit, stone, group 12-12; and
vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16; celtuce; fennel,
Florence, fresh leaves and stalk; and kohlrabi. Contact: RD.
    EPA Registration Numbers: 4787-55, 4787-61, 279-3596, 279-3603,
279-3557, 279-3588, 279-9658, 279-9638. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2023-0258. Applicant: Cheminova, A/S, wholly owned by FMC Corporation
2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Active ingredient:
Flutriafol. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Crop subgroup 1B:
root vegetables (except sugar beet), crop subgroup 1C; tuberous and
corm vegetables, sugarcane. Contact: RD.
    EPA Registration Number: 53883-415. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2023-0388. Applicant: Control Solutions, Inc. 5903 Genoa-Red Bluff
Pasadena, TX 77507-1041. Active ingredient: Novaluron, deltamethrin,
pyriproxyfen. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Aircraft cabin
use. Contact: RD.
    EPA Registration Numbers: 70506-514, 70506-602, 70506-603, 91813-
79. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0455. Applicant: UPL Delaware,
Inc. and UPL NA, Inc. 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of
Prussia, PA 19406. Active ingredient: Carboxin. Product type:
Fungicide. Proposed use(s): Additional new food uses of carboxin on
subgroup 6-22E dried shelled bean, except soybean and 6-22F; pulses,
dried shelled pea. Contact: RD.
    EPA Registration Number: 71512-2 and 71512-3. Docket ID number:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0257. Applicant: Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Venture
IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. Active ingredient: Cyazofamid.
Product type: Fungicide. Proposed uses: Pulses, dried shelled beans,
except soybean, subgroup 6-22E, parsnip, root, and crop group subgroup
conversions and expansions. Contact: RD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 5, 2023.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2023-19464 Filed 9-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P