Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 1 ADDENDUM TO ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRIES FINAL RULE Background EPA published the proposed All Appropriate Inquiries ( AAI) in the Federal Register on August 26, 2004 ( 69 FR 52542). Prior to publishing the proposed rule, EPA undertook an analysis of the potential economic impacts of the requirements included in the proposed rule. EPA published the results of the economic impact analysis in a document titled " Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed All Appropriate Inquiries Regulation." This document was included in the public docket for the proposed rule. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on the Economic Impact Analysis ( EIA).

Following publication of the proposed rule, EPA provided for a three month public comment period, during which the Agency accepted comments from the public on the proposed requirements for conducting AAIs and on the EIA for the proposed AAI regulation. During the public comment period, EPA held three public meetings on the proposed rule, in St. Louis on September 22, Washington D. C. on October 20, and San Francisco on November 18.

During the comment period, which ended on November 30, 2004, EPA received 4301 unique comments from interested stakeholders, including the comments submitted during the three public meetings. Commenters who are currently performing environmental site assessments ( ESAs) submitted over 70 percent of the comment letters. Close to 40 percent of those commenters were members of professional organizations which have educational and certification requirements for their members. Of the public comments received, 26 explicitly commented on the EIA.

Based on the comments received, EPA has made relatively minor changes to the regulatory language and is now finalizing the proposed requirements. The analysis presented in this addendum reflects the regulatory language in the final rule.

Purpose of the Addendum to EIA EPA received a number of comments on the EIA that was conducted to assess the potential costs and impacts of the proposed AAI rule. Before finalizing the AAI rule, EPA is required to consider and respond to issues raised by the public and may revise the proposed regulatory language and the EIA, based upon input provided in public comments, as the Agency deems appropriate. This addendum summarizes the public comments that EPA received on the EIA completed for the proposed rule and provides responses to the major issues raised by the commenters, and includes revised average incremental cost estimates.

1 The Agency received 439 comment letters of which nine letters were duplicates. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 2 The addendum is organized as follows. We first provide a brief summary of the changes that EPA is making to the proposed regulatory language in finalizing the regulations and we discuss whether any revisions to the EIA are required, based upon public comment and the modifications made. We then summarize the public comments by major issue and provide responses to each, with the revised incremental cost estimates presented in the subsequent section. Finally, we present a sensitivity analysis conducted in response to certain public comments.

Overview of the Revisions to the Regulatory Language In response to the public comments, EPA modified the proposed definition of environmental professional ( EP) to allow individuals who have significant relevant experience in conducting environmental site assessments, but do not have a Baccalaureate degree, to qualify as EPs. Under the final AAI rule, persons with 10 years of full time relevant experience will qualify as EPs, even if such individuals do not have college degrees.

With respect to the shelf life of ESA reports, EPA clarified the proposed language. Under the final AAI rule, information contained in previously conducted Phase I ESAs, even if the information was collected more than a year prior to the purchase date of the subject property, can be used in the development of a new AAI investigation. However, all aspects of an all appropriate inquiries investigation completed more than one year prior to the purchase date of the subject property must be updated to reflect current conditions and current property specific information.

With respect to the requirements to search for institutional controls ( ICs), EPA revised the required search distance included in the proposed rule. Under the final AAI rule, the search for ICs is confined to the subject property.

Public Comments EPA received a number of comments addressing the potential costs and impacts of the proposed AAI rule. Many commenters generally agreed with the EPA's conclusion that the average incremental cost increase associated with the proposed requirements would be minimal. Some commenters, however, asserted that the EIA underestimated the incremental costs associated with the proposed rule. Unfortunately, only a few commenters provided an explanation as to which particular activities would be associated with a higher level of effort than estimated in the EIA; most of the commenters did not provide specific reasons for claimed cost increases over the ASTM E1527 2000.

This section summarizes the public comments received and provides responses to issues raised by the commenters, including, where applicable, our rationale for revising the EIA. Each subsection corresponds to a major issue and opens with a brief overview of the proposed AAI rule dealing with that particular issue. Where EPA revised the proposed Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 3 language in response to the public comments, we summarize the requirements under the final AAI rule.

Definition of EP ( § 312.10)

The proposed AAI rule recognized professional engineers, professional geologists, and persons with state certifications as environmental professionals. The proposed rule also provided educational and relevant experience qualifications for individuals to meet the proposed EP definition. In addition, under the proposed rule, current practitioners with a Baccalaureate degree and 10 years of full time relevant experience would be " grandfathered," while individuals not meeting the EP definition would be allowed to contribute to the conduct of AAIs under the supervision or responsible charge of an EP.

Some commenters stated that the EIA underestimated the incremental cost of the AAI Phase I ESA relative to the ASTM E1527 2000 ( i. e., the base case). They reasoned that there would be an incremental cost increase under the AAI due to the more stringent license, educational, and relevant experience requirements for EPs.

The EIA did not account for any incremental cost due to the proposed definition of EP for the following reasons. First, the proposed rule requires that an EP supervise the Phase I ESA ( including visual inspection of the subject property), and not necessarily perform the entire site assessment. 2 Second, even if some firms exited the market ( firms without staff meeting the proposed EP definition), we would not expect the price of Phase I ESAs to increase since the ESA industry is highly competitive.

In the final AAI rule, EPA modified the definition of EP to provide for persons who have 10 years of full time relevant experience, but do not have a Baccalaureate degree, to qualify as EPs. Therefore, the percent of professionals who will not meet the revised definition of EP is likely to be very low. In addition, it is highly likely that most of the professionals not meeting the qualifications for an EP would be working under the supervision of an EP, in accordance with the AAI standard, until they accumulate the required 10 years of full time experience.

We did not revise the EIA based upon input from these commenters.

All Appropriate Inquiries ( § 312.20)

Data Gaps The proposed AAI rule set forth requirements for evaluation, identification, and documentation of data gaps. The proposed rule suggests sampling and analysis as one method to fill data gaps, but does not require it. In finalizing the rule, EPA did not make any changes to the proposed language.

2 During the negotiated rulemaking process, the FACA committee did consider the option of requiring all activities to be performed by an EP but did not adopt it. The EIA estimated the incremental costs under that option ( AAI Option 1). Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 4 Several commenters stated that the EIA underestimated the incremental cost associated with documenting data gaps, with ENSR International estimating the required level of effort of one to two hours. 3 The EIA did not explicitly account for this performance factor. Data gaps would need to be documented only in the cases in which the EP cannot perform one or more of the required tasks. The EIA implicitly assumed that if the documentation of data gaps is necessary, the time saved by omitting the required tasks would offset the time needed for the documentation.

We did not revise the EIA based upon input from these commenters.

Shelf Life of the AAI Phase I ESA Report Under the proposed AAI rule, parties conducting AAIs would be allowed to use previous inquiries completed for the same property provided that ( 1) the previous inquiries were completed with information that was collected or updated no longer than a year prior to the current acquisition date for the property; and ( 2) certain types of information collected more than 180 days prior to the current date of acquisition are updated for the current AAI.

A few commenters suggested that this new requirement would result in the redoing of a substantial number of reports. One commenter suggested that five to 10 percent of the reports prepared annually would be affected, without providing the source or the basis for the estimate. 4 The shelf life requirement may result in the redoing of a small fraction of Phase I ESAs. Because the rule allows for the use of previously collected information, the cost of redoing a Phase I ESA on the subject property should be lower, on average, than the cost of the initial Phase I ESA performed on the same subject property. The shelf life requirement, therefore, would not increase the average cost of Phase I ESAs.

In the final AAI rule, EPA clarified that previously completed AAI reports prepared for the same property can be used as sources of information even when they are more than a year old as long as the information in them is updated to reflect current conditions and current property specific information. This provision makes the AAI rule consistent with the current industry practice, and therefore should impose no incremental cost. No changes were made to the EIA based upon comments received on this provision of the proposed rule.

3 Public Comment 0314. 4 Public Comment 0256. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 5 Interviews with Past Owners or occupants ( § 312.23)

The proposed rule requires interviews with the current owner and occupant( s) of the subject property. The rule does not explicitly require interviews with past owners and occupants, but provides that the EP include interviews of past owners, operators, or occupants as necessary to meet the proposed objectives and in accordance with the proposed performance factors. In finalizing the rule, EPA did not make any changes to the proposed language.

The EIA assumed that if an interview of a past owner was necessary, that interview would allow a reduction in time needed to interview the current owner, thereby offsetting any time needed to interview the past owner. The EIA estimated a level of effort of two to six hours to conduct interviews both under the base case and the AAI rule.

A few commenters suggested that the EIA underestimated the level of effort for locating and interviewing past owners or occupants, with ENSR International estimating a level of effort of one to three hours for this task.

In response to the public comments, EPA revised the cost estimates developed for the analysis of the proposed rule. EPA agreed with the commenters who asserted that locating past owners or occupants may be more time consuming than locating the current owners or occupants and revised the cost estimate to reflect the additional incremental burden. Based on ICF Consulting's professional experience, locating past owners or occupants could require as little as one simple 5 minute phone call ( e. g., if the current owner has the contact information for the past owner) or it could require multiple phone calls that could take in excess of one hour. For the purpose of this analysis, we estimated the incremental burden to be, on average, one half hour per interview regardless of the property type or size. EPA also recognizes that in some cases the EP will need to complete the full interview with the current owner before determining that it is necessary to interview a past owner. In other words, the EP will need to do the full/ complete interview with the current owner, and then perform a more focused interview of a past owner to fill the data gaps. EPA estimated that the incremental burden for interviewing past owners or occupants will be one half hour for undeveloped and residential properties, one hour for commercial and industrial properties ( of all sizes except large industrial), and 1.5 hours for large industrial properties. Therefore, the total level of effort for locating and interviewing past property owners or occupants will range from one hour to two hours depending on the property type and size.

The additional incremental hour burden, however, will not be incurred at every site assessment. We expect that interview with past owners or occupants will be conducted for properties with a higher than average owner/ occupant turnover rate. 5 Since data on the turnover rate by property are not readily available, this number needs to be approximated.

5 As stated in section 5.2, we estimated that properties are sold, on average, every 10 years. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 6 We started with the estimate that newly purchased properties are resold after an average of 10 years. We then assumed, for simplicity, that the chance of reselling a property that has not yet been resold remains constant over time. These two assumptions imply that, of a group of properties that are purchased at the same time, 10 percent are resold in one year, another 9 percent ( that is, 10 percent of the 90 percent that were not sold in the first year) are sold in the second year, and so on. Further, we assumed that the EP will interview only the current property owner if s/ he were in the possession of the subject property for more than two years. It is reasonable to assume that after two years of owning a property, the current property owner should have a reasonably good knowledge of its condition.

Based on this analysis, we estimated that 19 percent of Phase I ESAs conducted in a given year are conducted on properties which were sold at least once in the previous two years. Using the assumption that 15 percent of all properties are abandoned properties ( see Section <IP_ADDRESS> of EIA) which would not be affected by the requirement to interview past owners or occupants, we revised the above estimate to account only for nonabandoned properties that were sold over the past two years. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, we estimated that 16 percent of properties will require one interview with past owners or occupants. 6 The revised cost estimates are presented in the next section.

Searches for Recorded Environmental Cleanup Liens ( § 312.25)

The proposed rule requires that prospective purchasers, or environment professionals on the purchasers' behalf, search for environmental cleanup liens that are recorded under federal, tribal, state, or local law. In finalizing the rule, EPA did not make any changes to the proposed language.

Many comments suggested that the title search for environmental liens would be an incremental cost. Under the current ASTM standard, it is the user's responsibility to check for environmental liens that are currently recorded against the subject property, and to report these to the EP conducting the Phase I ESA. The AAI rule's requirements are no different; therefore, there will be no incremental cost ( labor or expenses) incurred under the AAI rule. Thus, even if the cost of a title search is explicitly accounted for under the base case and under the AAI standard, the average incremental cost per transaction would stay unchanged.

No changes were made to the EIA based on input from these commenters.

Reviews of Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Government Records ( § 312.26)

The proposed rule requires that federal, state, tribal and local government records be searched for information necessary to achieve the objectives and performance factors, including information regarding the environmental conditions at the subject property and 6 One could choose other functional forms, for example, a uniform distribution over 20 years which would then lead to a lower number of affected properties. Our estimate should therefore be regarded as conservative. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 7 conditions of nearby or adjoining properties. In finalizing the rule, EPA modified the search requirements for institutional controls, based upon input provided by public commenters. The final rule requires that government records and available lists for ICs be searched only for information on such controls at the subject property. EPA made no modifications to the EIA based upon public comments, or the revisions made to the rule with regard to the requirements to search government records for information on institutional controls.

Tribal Records One commenter suggested that the EIA underestimated the incremental labor hours for searching tribal records. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA clarifies that tribal records need only be searched for and reviewed in those instances where the subject property is located on or near tribal owned lands. When such records are not available, necessary information should be sought from other sources. The EIA assumed that this requirement would be fulfilled to the extent that tribal records are easily available, through, for example, the EDR database. 7 If such records are not available, it is likely that the EP will attempt to obtain the relevant information during the interview process, and therefore there would be no incremental cost.

No changes were made to the EIA based upon this comment.

Search and Documentation of Institutional Controls The proposed AAI rule requires the EP to search for ICs within a one half mile radius of the subject property. A number of commenters claimed that the EIA underestimated the incremental labor hours required to search for ICs under the proposed AAI rule.

In the EIA for the proposed rulemaking, EPA assumed that the user would perform the search for ICs under the AAI requirements, as they have been required to do under the ASTM, at no additional labor hour burden and/ or direct costs. This assumption was based on the information from EDR stating that it would start including data on ICs in future EDR Reports at no additional cost. Unlike the current ASTM standard, the AAI rule explicitly requires that the EP document the search results in the Phase I ESA report. EPA assumed, in the analysis for the proposed rule, which the documentation requirement would result in an additional one half hour to one hour of labor, depending on the property type.

Based on the information provided in the public comments, we determined that the estimated incremental labor hours required to search for ICs under the proposed AAI rule were underestimated. The proposed AAI rule would have extended the search for ICs to one half mile radius of the subject property while the search requirement under the ASTM standard is limited to the subject property. Had the EIA for the proposed rule properly accounted for the extended scope of the IC search requirement under the 7 EDR informed ICF that it currently searches tribal records in 27 states. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 8 proposed AAI rule, the estimated average incremental cost per Phase I ESA would have been higher than $ 47.

EPA, however, has revised the IC search requirement under the final AAI rule, based upon input from commenters, by limiting the search for ICs to the subject property. This revision is in line with the commenters' recommendations and the ASTM IC search requirement. Therefore, the EIA does not need to be revised to reflect this change.

The Relationship of the Purchase Price to the Value of the Property, if the Property was not Contaminated ( § 312.29)

The proposed AAI rule required that the purchaser of the property consider whether or not the property's purchase price reflects the fair market value of the property, assuming the property is not contaminated. In finalizing the rule, EPA did not make any changes to the proposed language.

A number of commenters suggested that the EIA underestimated the incremental cost associated with the purchase price requirement since it did not account for the cost of conducting a formal real estate appraisal of the subject property.

While the EIA did incorporate an incremental labor hour burden under the AAI rule to document the results in the report, the AAI rule does not specifically require that a real estate appraisal be conducted. Therefore, in the EIA we assumed that a more extensive search would not be required under the AAI requirements than what is currently required under the ASTM E1527 2000.

Other Issues  Liability Insurance Several commenters indicated that the EIA underestimated the incremental cost associated with liability insurance, stating that the insurance industry likely would increase insurance premiums to account for the added risk associated with the " openended nature" of the AAI rule. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, EPA believes that those commenters who argued that the performance based approach to proposed rule is " open ended," most likely misunderstood the extent of the statutory requirements for obtaining CERCLA liability protection. The mere conduct of AAI prior to purchasing a property does not ensure the liability protections. The statute establishes many other criteria for obtaining protection from CERCLA liability.

It is not clear that the insurance industry would react to the AAI rule as commenters indicated. It is also possible, for example, that insurance companies will cut premiums for all policies that might be affected by CERCLA as a result of additional liability protection the statute offers to prospective purchasers who follow the AAI standard.

No changes were made to the EIA based on input from these commenters. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 9 Revised Estimates of Costs This section presents the revised average incremental cost per AAI Phase I ESA and the incremental total annual cost under the final AAI rule compared to the base case.

The EIA estimated that there would be no incremental burden associated with locating and interviewing current and past owners and operators for non abandoned properties under the AAI rule; the level of effort for this task would be the same as under the ASTM E1527 2000. In response to the public comments, we revised the labor burden under the final AAI rule to account for the additional level of effort required to locate and interview past owners and occupants. EPA estimated that the incremental burden for locating and interviewing past owners or occupants would be one hour for undeveloped and residential properties and 1.5 hours for commercial and industrial properties ( except for large industrial properties for which we estimated a level of effort of two hours). As explained in the previous section, we estimate that 16 percent of properties will be affected.

Except for the increase in the level of effort for the interview task for non abandoned properties, all other parameters used in modeling are the same as presented in the EIA conducted for the proposed rule. To derive the incremental average cost per transaction and the total annual cost of the final AAI rule, we employed the methodology explained in detail in Chapters 7 and 8 of the EIA.

Average Phase I ESA Cost As explained in Chapter 8 of the EIA, we estimated the distribution of abandoned and non abandoned properties as a range due to uncertainties surrounding the number of abandoned properties subject to the AAI requirements. As a result, the estimated weighted average cost of a Phase I ESA under the AAI rule also is presented as a range. To derive an upper bound estimate of the weighted average cost of a Phase I ESA, we assumed that 15 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. For a lower bound estimate, we assumed that 28 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned.

As shown in the tables below, based on our analysis, the cost of a Phase I ESA under the final AAI regulation will increase, on average, between $ 52 and $ 58. The estimated weighted average cost for a Phase I ESA thus will range between $ 2,185 and $ 2,190.8 8 We assumed that the EPs will need to complete the full interview with the current owner before conducting an interview with the past owners or occupants. To the extent that this may not always be the case, the average incremental cost is overestimated. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 10 Exhibit A 1: Final AAI Regulation  Estimated Unit Cost ( Upper Bound)

Size Type Assumed Distribution Average Incremental Hours Average Incremental Labor Cost Average Incremental Direct Cost Average Total Incremental Cost Small Undeveloped/ Agricultural 12.8% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Residential 9.2% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Commercial 37.6% 1.32 $ 67.3 $ 0 $ 67.3 Industrial 11.4% 1.32 $ 67.3 $ 0 $ 67.3 Medium Undeveloped/ Agricultural 5% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Residential 3.6% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Commercial 14.8% 1.32 $ 67.3 $ 0 $ 67.3 Industrial 4.5% 1.32 $ 67.3 $ 0 $ 67.3 Large Undeveloped/ Agricultural 0.2% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Residential 0.1% 0.73 $ 37.6 $ 0 $ 37.6 Commercial 0.5% 1.32 $ 67.3 $ 0 $ 67.3 Industrial 0.2% 1.32 $ 67.6 $ 0 $ 67.6 Average Incremental Cost $ 58 Average ASTM E1527 2000 Phase I ESA Cost $ 2,132 Average AAI Phase I ESA Cost $ 2,190 Notes: We assumed that 15 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. Totals do not add due to rounding.

Exhibit A 2: Final AAI Regulation  Estimated Unit Cost ( Lower Bound)

Size Type Assumed Distribution Average Incremental Hours Average Incremental Labor Cost Average Incremental Direct Cost Average Total Incremental Cost Small Undeveloped/ Agricultural 12.8% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Residential 9.2% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Commercial 37.6% 1.19 $ 60.7 $ 0 $ 60.7 Industrial 11.4% 1.19 $ 60.7 $ 0 $ 60.7 Medium Undeveloped/ Agricultural 5% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Residential 3.6% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Commercial 14.8% 1.19 $ 60.7 $ 0 $ 60.7 Industrial 4.5% 1.19 $ 60.7 $ 0 $ 60.7 Large Undeveloped/ Agricultural 0.2% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Residential 0.1% 0.67 $ 34.3 $ 0 $ 34.3 Commercial 0.5% 1.19 $ 60.7 $ 0 $ 60.7 Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 11 Size Type Assumed Distribution Average Incremental Hours Average Incremental Labor Cost Average Incremental Direct Cost Average Total Incremental Cost Industrial 0.2% 1.13 $ 57.6 $ 0 $ 57.6 Average Incremental Cost $ 52 Average ASTM E1527 2000 Phase I ESA Cost $ 2,132 Average AAI Phase I ESA Cost $ 2,185 Notes: We assumed that 28 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. Totals do not add due to rounding.

Under the final AAI regulation, the average estimated incremental costs for the users transitioning from transaction screens to Phase I ESAs will range between $ 1,459 and $ 1,465 ($ 2,185  $ 726 = $ 1,459, and $ 2,190  $ 726   $ 1,465; where $ 726 is the estimated average cost of a transaction screen). Although this is a relatively high incremental cost, only a small percent of the users will be affected annually.

As explained in the EIA conducted for the proposed rule, we estimate that about 97 percent of property transactions will bear only the incremental cost of the rule relative to the ASTM E1527 2000 standard. Therefore, under the final AAI regulation, the weighted average incremental cost per ESA per property transaction is estimated to be between $ 94 and $ 100 ( 97% * $ 52 + 3% * $ 1,459 = $ 94, and 97% * $ 58 + 3% * $ 1,465 = $ 100).

Total Cost and Incremental Annual Cost In this section, we first present the estimated total 10 year cost and the total annual cost of the AAI rule. We then present the incremental total annual cost of the AAI rule relative to the total annual cost under the base case, where the incremental total annual cost is the annual cost of the AAI regulation.

Based on our analysis, the present value of the total 10 year cost of the AAI rule would range between $ 5.92 billion and $ 5.93 billion, assuming a three percent annual growth rate in Phase I ESAs and a three percent discount rate. The total annual cost, amortized over 10 years at a three percent discount rate, would range between $ 694 million and $ 695 million. Using a discount rate of seven percent, we estimate the total 10 year cost will range between $ 5.01 billion and $ 5.03 billion and the total annual cost will range from $ 714 million to $ 716 million. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 12 Exhibit A 3: AAI Regulation  Estimated Total Cost ( Upper Bound)

Annual Volume Total Annual Cost ( in millions) Year Phase I ESAs Transaction Screens Phase I ESAs Transaction Screens Sum of Phase I ESAs and Transaction Screens Total Cost Discounted at 3% Total Cost Discounted at 7%

2004 263,680 24,320 $ 577.6 $ 17.6 $ 595.2 $ 595.2 $ 595.2 2005 271,590 24,320 $ 594.9 $ 17.6 $ 612.5 $ 594.7 $ 572.5 2006 279,738 24,320 $ 612.7 $ 17.6 $ 630.4 $ 594.2 $ 550.6 2007 288,130 24,320 $ 631.1 $ 17.6 $ 648.8 $ 593.7 $ 529.6 2008 296,774 24,320 $ 650.1 $ 17.6 $ 667.7 $ 593.2 $ 509.4 2009 305,677 24,320 $ 669.6 $ 17.6 $ 687.2 $ 592.8 $ 490.0 2010 314,848 24,320 $ 689.7 $ 17.6 $ 707.3 $ 592.3 $ 471.3 2011 324,293 24,320 $ 710.3 $ 17.6 $ 728.0 $ 591.9 $ 453.4 2012 334,022 24,320 $ 731.6 $ 17.6 $ 749.3 $ 591.5 $ 436.1 2013 344,043 24,320 $ 753.6 $ 17.6 $ 771.2 $ 591.1 $ 419.5 Present Value of Total 10 year Cost $ 5,930.7 $ 5,027.5 Annual Cost $ 695.3 $ 715.8 Notes: We assumed that 15 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. Totals do not add due to rounding.

Exhibit A 4: AAI Regulation  Estimated Total Cost ( Lower Bound)

Annual Volume Total Annual Cost ( in millions) Year Phase I ESAs Transaction Screens Phase I ESAs Transaction Screens Sum of Phase I ESAs and Transaction Screens Total Cost Discounted at 3% Total Cost Discounted at 7%

2004 263,680 24,320 $ 576.1 $ 17.6 $ 593.7 $ 593.7 $ 593.7 2005 271,590 24,320 $ 593.4 $ 17.6 $ 611.0 $ 593.2 $ 571.0 2006 279,738 24,320 $ 611.2 $ 17.6 $ 628.8 $ 592.7 $ 549.2 2007 288,130 24,320 $ 629.5 $ 17.6 $ 647.2 $ 592.2 $ 528.3 2008 296,774 24,320 $ 648.4 $ 17.6 $ 666.0 $ 591.8 $ 508.1 2009 305,677 24,320 $ 667.8 $ 17.6 $ 685.5 $ 591.3 $ 488.7 2010 314,848 24,320 $ 687.9 $ 17.6 $ 705.5 $ 590.9 $ 470.1 2011 324,293 24,320 $ 708.5 $ 17.6 $ 726.2 $ 590.4 $ 452.2 2012 334,022 24,320 $ 729.8 $ 17.6 $ 747.4 $ 590.0 $ 435.0 2013 344,043 24,320 $ 751.7 $ 17.6 $ 769.3 $ 589.6 $ 418.5 Present Value of Total 10 year Cost $ 5,915.9 $ 5,014.9 Annual Cost $ 693.5 $ 714.0 Notes: We assumed that 28 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. Totals do not add due to rounding. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 13 Summary of Annual Cost Estimates Exhibits A 5 and A 6 summarize the total annual cost estimates for the base case and the final AAI regulation, calculated using a discount rate of three and seven percent, respectively. The Exhibits also present the estimated incremental total annual cost of the final AAI rule relative to the base case.

Exhibit A 5: Summary of Annual Cost Estimates ( in millions), Discounted at Three Percent Base Case Final AAI Rule Total Annual Cost $ 663.8 $ 693.5  $ 695.3 Incremental Total Annual Cost Relative to the Base Case $ 0 $ 29.7  $ 31.4 Exhibit A 6: Summary of Annual Cost Estimates ( in millions), Discounted at Seven Percent Base Case Final AAI Rule Total Annual Cost $ 683.5 $ 714.0  $ 715.8 Incremental Total Annual Cost Relative to the Base Case $ 0 $ 30.5  $ 32.3 Sensitivity Analysis Overview of the EDR Survey Among the commenters who asserted that the EIA underestimated the incremental cost of the proposed rule, several cited the result of a " survey" conducted by Environmental Data Resource ( EDR) and published in the July 2004 issue of the ESA Newsletter. The EDR results were based on an informal client questionnaire in which over 500 EPs responded to a request to quantify the effects of the proposed AAI rule on the price of Phase I ESA at their respective firms. Close to 60 percent of the respondents indicated that a higher level of effort required for an environmental inquiry under the AAI rule would cause them to increase the price of Phase I ESA at their firm by more than 10 percent. Assuming the average price of Phase I ESA of $ 2,000, a 10 percent increase would amount to a $ 200 price increase. Figure 1 presents the results of the survey. 9 9 EDR conducted a more formal survey in the Fall of 2004 in which it asked the same question. The results of the two surveys are fairly similar, with the second survey showing a higher percentage of respondents who expect the price of Phase I ESA at their firm to increase by less than five percent ( 28 percent versus 15 percent in the first survey). Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 14 Source: EDR, ESA Newsletter, July 2004.

In its surveys, EDR did not ask the respondents to identify specific tasks associated with a higher level of effort ( and therefore higher price), an approach that would have been more in line with the EIA methodology. The EDR results, thus, do not give a basis for revising the incremental cost estimates for individual tasks. Specifically, it cannot be determined, based on the information provided in the surveys, whether the EIA did not account for all of the incremental ( i. e., new) tasks or whether the EIA underestimated the level of effort and/ or direct costs for the incremental tasks.

The following issues regarding the EDR results are worth nothing before proceeding to a sensitivity analysis. First, the EIA estimated the incremental cost under the proposed AAI rule relative to the ASTM standard, with an implicit assumption that the ESA industry is fully compliant with the ASTM standard. The EDR survey respondents were asked to assess an increase in the price of Phase I ESA relative to their current practices which might be more or less stringent than the ASTM standard. Second, the EIA estimated a weighted average incremental cost, where the distributions of properties by type and size were used as weights. Respondents to EDR's questionnaire were probably assessing an impact on the price of Phase I ESA for a " typical" property for which they performed ESAs. What constitutes a " typical" property may vary significantly across firms. Third, the EIA weighted the increased effort under the AAI by the probability that the incremental hours may be needed. For example, we assumed that only 15 percent of properties would need to satisfy the requirement for documenting the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property. EDR's respondents might well have assumed that all of the AAI requirements will need to be satisfied in each and every Phase I ESA. In addition, there is a possibility of selectivity bias in the EDR results. Specifically, it is possible that the EPs who believe the AAI rule would raise the level of effort for conducting Phase I ESAs significantly relative to the ASTM standard responded with greater frequency than those who believe the effect would be minimal.

To address the public comments received, we performed the following sensitivity analysis. Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 15 Sensitivity Analysis   Average Increment Cost We estimated that the cost of a Phase I ESA under the final AAI rule would increase, on average, by approximately three percent compared to the cost of a Phase I ESA under the current ASTM standard ( or by approximately 200 percent for properties switching from a transaction screen to an AAI Phase I ESA). This translates to an incremental cost of $ 58 per Phase I ESA ( or $ 1,465 per ESA for properties switching from transaction screens).

The ESA practitioners surveyed by the EDR indicated that the increase in the price of a Phase I ESA under the proposed AAI rule would be anywhere between 0 to over 20 percent. To estimate the average increase in the Phase I ESA price, we first estimated the average price of a Phase I ESA using the data on the distribution of properties by the average Phase I ESA price presented in the EDR's 2005 Environmental Site Assessment Industry Benchmark Report. We then multiplied the estimated average price by the expected percentage increase in the price as presented in the EDR survey. Weighing the results by the distribution of the EDR survey respondents, we estimated that the average incremental increase in the price of a Phase I ESA under the proposed AAI rule would be about $ 240 ( or about 12 percent). We assumed that this would be an average incremental increase for properties switching from the ASTM E1527 2000.10 We then used this estimate to conduct a sensitivity analysis. The results are presented in Table A 7.

Exhibit A 7: Annual Cost Estimates ( in millions)   Average Incremental Cost Average Incremental Cost per Phase I ESA Relative to the Base Case Cost Estimates Base Case Final AAI Total Annual Cost1 $ 683.5 $ 715.8 ICF estimate: $ 58 Incremental Total Annual Cost Relative to the Base Case1 $ 0 $ 32.3 Total Annual Cost $ 683.5 $ 773.7 EDR Survey: $ 240 Incremental Total Annual Cost Relative to the Base Case $ 0 $ 90.2 1) The cost estimates are presented in Exhibit A 6. Notes: 1. We assumed that Phase I ESAs grow at an annual rate of three percent. 2. We assumed that 15 percent of all commercial properties subject to the AAI requirements are abandoned. 3. Costs are discounted at seven percent.

The sensitivity analysis results show that an average incremental cost of $ 240 per Phase I ESA would lead to an incremental total annual cost of $ 90.2 million. Thus, even if the final AAI rule increases the cost per Phase I ESA by an amount close to the EDR respondents' estimate, the annual cost of the regulation is below $ 100 million.

10 Properties switching from a transaction screen would see an average increase of about $ 1,650 ($ 2,132 + $ 240  $ 726 = $ 1,646). Addendum to EIA for the AAI Regulation A 16 Small Entity Analysis This section presents the revised estimate of the potential economic impact of the AAI rule on small entities.

In Chapter 10 of the EIA, we estimated that, for the majority of small entities, the average incremental cost of the proposed AAI rule relative to the base case ( i. e., the ASTM E1527 2000) would be between $ 41 and $ 47. For properties switching from a transaction screen to a Phase I ESA under the proposed rule ( about three percent of transactions annually) the cost would increase, on average, between $ 1,448 and $ 1,454.

Based upon input from commenters, we revised the cost estimates to account for the additional incremental hour burden for locating and interviewing past owners or occupants at non abandoned properties. The additional burden for the interview task for non abandoned properties was not accounted for in the analysis of costs conducted for the proposed rule. All other parameters used in modeling the impacts on small entities are the same as presented in the EIA for the proposed rule.

Based on our analysis, for the majority of small businesses, the cost of conducting a Phase I ESA would increase, on average, between $ 52 and $ 58 under the final AAI rule. For the small percentage of cases for which a transaction screen would have been preferred to the ASTM E1527 2000 in the base case, but which now would require an assessment in compliance with the AAI regulation, the cost of conducting an ESA would increase, on average, between $ 1,459 and $ 1,465. Annualizing the incremental cost per ESA over 10 years  the average life of a firm  at a seven percent discount rate, we estimated that, for the majority of small entities, the average annual cost increase per establishment per property transaction would be approximately $ 8. For the small percentage of entities transitioning from transaction screens to Phase I ESAs, the average annual cost increase per establishment per property transaction would be $ 209. We conclude that, although substantial numbers of small entities would likely be affected by the AAI regulation, the cost impact on them would not be significant.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 2345]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2822-011; ER11-2196-008; ER11-2462-007; ER11-
2463-007; ER11-2464-007; ER11-2465-008; ER11-2466-007; ER11-2467-007;
ER11-2468-007; ER11-2469-007; ER11-2470-007; ER11-2471-007; ER11-2472-
007; ER11-2473-007; ER11-2474-009; ER11-2475-007; ER16-1250-003.
    Applicants: Atlantic Renewable Projects II LLC, Avangrid
Renewables, LLC, Big Horn Wind Project LLC, Big Horn II Wind Project
LLC, Colorado Green Holdings LLC, Hay Canyon Wind LLC, Juniper Canyon
Wind Power LLC, Klamath Energy LLC, Klamath Generation LLC, Klondike
Wind Power LLC, Klondike Wind Power II LLC, Klondike Wind Power III
LLC, Leaning Juniper Wind Power II LLC, Pebble Springs Wind LLC, San
Luis Solar LLC, Star Point Wind Project LLC, Twin Buttes Wind LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northwest Region
of AVANGRID Northwest MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20161230-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2906-008; ER10-2908-008; ER10-2910-008; ER10-
2911-008; ER11-4666-002; ER11-4667-002; ER11-4669-002; ER11-4670-002;
ER12-295-001; ER12-709-001.
    Applicants: Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc., MS Solar Solutions
Corp., Naniwa Energy LLC, Power Contract Financing II, L.L.C.,
NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 1, LLC, NaturEner Glacier Wind Energy 2,
LLC, NaturEner Rim Rock Wind Energy, LLC, NaturEner Montana Wind
Energy, LLC, NaturEner Power Watch, LLC, NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northwest Region
and Notice of Change in Status of the Morgan Stanley Public Utilities,
et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20161230-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/17.
    Docket Numbers: ER15-1952-003; ER16-853-002; ER16-855-002; ER16-
856-002; ER16-857-002; ER16-858-002; ER16-860-002; ER16-861-002.
    Applicants: Pavant Solar, LLC, Enterprise Solar, LLC, Escalante
Solar I, LLC, Escalante Solar II, LLC, Escalante Solar III, LLC,
Granite Mountain Solar East, LLC, Granite Mountain Solar West, LLC,
Iron Springs Solar, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Northwest
Region of Pavant Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20161230-5240.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2351-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Alliant Energy Corp. Serv. Att AH
SA 3066SO/Att AO SA 3071SO to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170103-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-328-003; ER10-2196-003; ER11-4027-008; ER12-
1275-003; ER12-952-004; ER13-1141-003; ER13-1142-003; ER13-1143-004;
ER13-1144-004; ER15-1657-004; ER16-918-002.
    Applicants: Cogentrix Virginia Financing Holding Company, LLC,
Essential Power, LLC, Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC, Essential
Power Newington, LLC, Essential Power OPP, LLC, Essential Power Rock
Springs, LLC, James River Genco, LLC, Lakewood Cogeneration, L.P., Red
Oak Power, LLC, Rhode Island State Energy Center, LP, SEPG Energy
Marketing Services, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Northeast Region
of Cogentrix Virginia Financing Holding Company, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20161230-5230.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-736-000.
    Applicants: Quantum Power Corp.
    Description: Compliance filing: Market Based Rate Tariff Baseline
Filing to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170103-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-737-000.
    Applicants: Viridity Energy Solutions Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: VES MBR Application to be
effective 1/4/2017.
    Filed Date: 1/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170103-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-738-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3125R4 Basin Electric Power
Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 12/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 1/3/17.
    Accession Number: 20170103-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/24/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 3, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00119 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59186-59188]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23736]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0390; FRL-9364-1]

Notice of Receipt of Pesticide Products; Registration
Applications To Register New Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register new
uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. This
notice provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the
applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the EPA Registration Number or EPA File Symbol of
interest as shown in the body of this document, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone, email, or mail. Mail correspondence to the Antimicrobials
Division (AD) (7510P) or Registration Division (RD) (7505P), 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.

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. 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

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), 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. For actions being evaluated under the
Agency's public participation process for registration actions, there
will be an additional opportunity for a 30-day public comment period on
the proposed decision. Please see the Agency's public participation Web
site for additional information on this process http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registration-public-involvement.html. EPA
received the following applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients:
    1. EPA Registration Number: 100-542. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0590. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Prometryn. Product Type:
Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Dill and snap beans. Contact: Mindy Ondish,
RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-993. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0589. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Fomesafen. Product Type:
Herbicide. Proposed Use: Vegetable soybean (edamame). Contact: Michael
Walsh, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-1017 and 100-1103. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0589. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient:
Fomesafen. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Use: For formulation into
an herbicide for use on cantaloupe, cucumber, pea (succulent), pumpkin,
squash (Summer and Winter), watermelon, and vegetable soybean
(edamame). Contact: Michael Walsh, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. EPA Registration Number: 100-1374. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0704. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Seed treatment use on corn, popcorn, sorghum,
pea and bean (dried shelled), and rapeseed. Contact: Heather Garvie,
RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. EPA Registration Number: 100-1381. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0704. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Sedaxane. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Use: For formulation into a fungicide for use as a
seed treatment for use on corn, popcorn, sorghum, pea and bean (dried
shelled), and rapeseed. Contact: Heather Garvie, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. EPA Registration Number: 264-666. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0588. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, LP., 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient:
Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Post-
emergence annual and perennial grass control in perennial ryegrass,
tall fescue, and certain cultivars of annual ryegrass grown seed in
Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Contact: Grant Rowland, RD, (703) 347-
0254, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. EPA Registration Numbers: 352-728, 352-729, 352-730, and 352-
844. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0635. Applicant: DuPont Crop
Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE
19714. Active ingredient: Chlorantraniliprole. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Cereal grain group 15, except rice; forage,
fodder; straw of cereal grain group 16; pome fruit group 11-10; and
citrus fruit group 10-10. Contact: Jennifer Urbanski, RD, (703) 347-
0156, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. EPA File Symbol: 6836-GLE. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0625. Applicant: Lonza, Inc., 90 Boroline Road, Allendale, NJ 07401.
Active ingredient: 1-Bromo-3-chloro-5,5-dimethylhydantoin at 97.7%.
Product Type: Disinfectant. Proposed Use: Drinking Water. Contact:
Jaclyn Carl, AD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. EPA Registration Number: 7969-257. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0508. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Triticonazole. Product
Type: Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Outdoor and

greenhouse ornamentals. Contact: Shaunta Hill, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    10. EPA Registration Number: 10163-209. Docket ID Number: Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0357. Applicant: Gowan Company, 370 South Main
Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Use: For formulation into an insecticide for use
on pepper and eggplant. Contact: Olga Odiott, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    11. EPA Registration Numbers: 10163-250, 10163-251, and 10163-277.
Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0357. Applicant: Gowan Company, 370
South Main Street, Yuma, AZ 85364. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox.
Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Pepper and eggplant. Contact:
Olga Odiott, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    12. EPA Registration Number: 10163-277. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0623. Applicant: Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma,
AZ 85364. Active ingredient: Hexythiazox. Product Type: Insecticide.
Proposed Use: Sorghum. Contact: Olga Odiott, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    13. EPA File Symbol: 53883-GRE. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0627. Applicant: Control Solutions, Inc., 5903 Genoa Red Bluff,
Pasadena, TX 77507. Active ingredient: Novaluron. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Use: Pet Spot treatment for Dogs. Contact: Autumn
Metzger, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    14. EPA File Symbol: 59639-RTO. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0357. Applicant: Valent U.S.A. Corporation, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut
Creek, CA 94596. Active ingredient: Fenpyrazamine. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Uses: Bushberry (subgroup 13-07B), caneberry
(subgroup 13-07A), ginseng, and pistachio. Contact: Gene Benbow, RD,
(703) 347-0235, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    15. EPA Registration Numbers: 59639-150 and 59639-152. Docket ID
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0217. Applicant: Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Active ingredient: Clothianidin.
Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: To amend an existing
tolerance for crop subgroup 8-10B to 0.7 ppm. Contact: Marianne Lewis,
RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    16. EPA Registration Number: 59639-173. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-0217. Applicant: Valent U.S.A. Corporation, P.O. Box 8025,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Active ingredient: Clothianidin. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Expansion of crop groupings to receive the
new fruiting vegetable crop group 8-10 and pome fruits crop group 11-
10. Contact: Marianne Lewis, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    17. EPA Registration Number: 62719-416. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2012-0520. Applicant: Dow AgroSciences LLC., 9330 Zionsville Road,
Indianapolis, IN 46268. Active ingredient: Fenbuconazole. Product Type:
Fungicide. Proposed Use: Pepper. Contact: Erin Malone, RD, (703) 347-
0253, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    18. EPA Registration Numbers: 81880-2, 81880-15, and 81880-18.
Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0586. Applicant: Canyon Group LLC.,
c/o Gowan Company, 370 South Main St., Yuma, AZ 85364. Active
ingredient: Halosulfuron-methyl. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed
Uses: Caneberry (subgroup 13-07A) and artichoke. Contact: Maggie
Rudick, RD,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-23736 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P