FILE NAME: company. wpt ( 1/ 1/ 2006) ( xml) Template Number P25 ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ foodfeed/).

All text in blue font ( instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff. Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2006)

EPA Registration Division contact: [ Marilyn Mautz, 703 305 6785]

TEMPLATE:

[ Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation]

[ Insert petition number]

EPA has received a pesticide petition ([ insert petition number]) from [ Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation], [ 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of [ 3 dodecyl  1,4 dihydro 1,4 dioxo 2 naphthyl acetate and its metabolite 2 dodecyl 3 hydroxy 1,4 naphthoquinone expressed as acequinocyl equivalents ] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [ Tree Nuts ( Crop Group 14)] at [ 0.02] parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. [ The nature of the residues of acequinocyl in plants is adequately 2 understood based on three crops; apples, oranges and eggplant. The major residue in all plant metabolism studies is acequinocyl. A minor but significant metabolite is acequinocyl OH ( 2 dodecyl 3 hydroxy 1,4 naphthoquinone). The proposed tolerance expression is the parent, acequinocyl and its hydroxy metabolite, acequinocyl OH.]

2. Analytical method. [ The analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl OH in/ on nut crops utilizes high pressure liquid chromatography ( HPLC) using mass spectrometric ( MS/ MS) detection. The target limit of quantitation ( LOQ) is 0.01 ppm.]

3. Magnitude of residues. [ The proposed use of acequinocyl calls for a maximum application rate of 2 applications at 0.3 lb ai per acre per application, with a 21 day interval between applications. The pre harvest interval is 7 days. The maximum residues expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in/ on pecan nutmeats were 0.0153 ppm. The crop field trial data are adequate to support the proposed tolerance of 0.02 ppm for the crop group tree nuts.]

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. [ Acequinocyl technical has low acute, dermal and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals. The oral LD50 ( M/ F) in the rat and mouse was > 5000 mg/ kg. The dermal LD50 ( M/ F) was > 2000 mg/ kg. The inhalation LC50 was reported as > 0.84 mg/ l. In the eye and dermal irritation studies, acequinocyl technical was not an eye or skin irritant to rabbits and was not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs.]

2. Genotoxicty. [ Acequinocyl was found to be negative in the Ames reverse mutation, mouse lymphoma, Chinese hamster lung ( CHL) chromosome aberration and mouse micronucleus assays.]

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [ i. Rat teratology. Acequinocyl technical was administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague Dawley rats at dose levels of 0, 50, 150, 500 or 750 mg/ kg/ day. Common signs in the descendants included vaginal discharge, pallor, pale eyes, hypoactivity, piloerection, slow or irregular breathing, intra uterine hemorrhage and blood stained stomach and/ or intestinal contents. Maternal NOEL= 150 mg/ kg/ day based on 3 these signs. Developmental NOEL= 500 mg/ kg/ day based on increase in certain skeletal variants that may be attributed to the observed maternal toxicity.

ii. Rabbit teratology. Groups of New Zealand white rabbits received acequinocyl technical by gavage at doses of 0, 30, 60 or 120 mg/ kg/ day. Maternal NOEL= 60 mg/ kg/ day based on reduction in maternal body weight and 5 females were sacrificed at 120 mg/ kg/ day. Fetal NOEL= 60 mg/ kg/ day due to skeletal variations in the thoraco lumbar ribs.

iii. Rat reproduction study. Acequinocyl technical was fed to two generations of male and female Sprague Dawley rats at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 800, or 1500 ppm ( 0, 7.3, 59 or 111 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 8.7, 69 or 134 mg/ kg/ day for females). Systemic and pup NOEL= 100 ppm ( 7.3 and 8.7 mg/ kg/ day). Systemic: Hemorrhage and swollen body parts were seen at 800 and 1500 ppm in F1 males . At 800 and 1500 ppm, treatment related clinical signs, hemorrhagic effects, subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/ or cranium and/ or brain were seen in the F1 pups. At 800 and 1500 ppm toxicity seen in F2 pups included subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/ or cranium and/ or brain at weaning.]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [ i. Rat feeding study. Fischer rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 400, 1600 or 3200 ppm ( 0, 7.57, 30.4, 120, 253 mg/ kg/ day, respectively for males and 0, 8.27, 32.2, 129, 286 mg/ kg/ day, respectively for females) for 13 consecutive weeks. Treatment related yellow brown urine in all animals of both sexes at 400 ppm suggested the presence of the metabolite of the test material. Macroscopic examination on the surviving animals revealed no treatment related abnormalities. At 3200 and 1600 ppm, macroscopic and microscopic examination of the mortalities revealed hemorrhaging of muscle and other organs. NOEL= 400 ppm ( 30.4 mg/ kg/ day for males and 32.2 mg/ kg/ day for females).

ii. Mouse feeding study. Groups of CD 1 ( ICR) BR mice received acequinocyl technical by oral route at concentrations of 0, 100, 500, 1000 or 1500 ppm ( 0, 16, 81, 151, 295 mg/ kg/ day respectively for males and 0, 21, 100, 231, 342 mg/ kg/ day respectively for females) for 13 weeks. At 100 ppm, there were hepatic histopathological lesions and an increase in relative liver weight. A clear NOEL for both sexes was not determined. 4 iii. Dog feeding study. Acequinocyl technical was administered via gelatin capsule to male and female beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 40, 160, 640 or 1000 mg/ kg/ day once a day 7 days a week for 13 weeks. At 40, 160 and 640 mg/ kg/ day colored feces was observed in both sexes. At 160 and 640 mg/ kg/ day, treatment related decrease in body weight gain in males and an increased platelet count for females was observed. Macroscopic and microscopic examinations on the surviving animals revealed no treatment related abnormalities. A clear NOEL was not determined.

iv. 28 day dermal toxicity. Groups of Sprague Dawley rats received daily dermal applications of acequinocyl technical at doses of 0, 40, 200 or 1000 mg/ kg/ day for 6 hours/ day for 28 days followed by a 14 day treatment free period only in the high dose group. There were no macroscopic findings. Red staining occurred on the back of the animals and was only seen in the morning after dosing. There was no evidence of systemic toxicity. NOEL= 1000 mg/ kg/ day.]

5. Chronic toxicity. [ i. Dog feeding study. Beagle dogs were dosed by capsule at 0, 5, 20, 80 or 320 mg/ kg/ day for 1 year with acequinocyl technical. Minor disturbances in platelet counts were observed in both sexes at 80 and 320 mg/ kg/ day. There were no treatment related macroscopic histopathological findings. Colored feces and/ or abnormally stained sawdust were observed for all treatment groups. Varying degrees of discoloration of the urine were observed for animals receiving 20 mg/ kg/ day or more. The discoloration was considered to be attributable to a colored metabolite of the test substance. NOEL= 20 mg/ kg/ day.

ii. Rat feeding/ oncogenicity study. Groups of F344 rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary levels of 0, 50, 200, 800 or 1600 ppm ( 0, 2.25, 9.02, 36.4, 74.0 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 2.92, 11.6, 46.3, 93.6 mg/ kg/ day for females) for 2 years. NOEL= 200 ppm ( 9.02 and 11.6 mg/ kg/ day for males and females respectively). Corneal abnormalities and hypertrophy of the eye were observed in 800 ppm and 1600 ppm males and 1600 ppm females. At 800 ppm and 1600 ppm, PT was observed to be longer in males and shorter in females and APTT longer in females. Reddish brown urine was observed in both males and females. There was no incidence of tumors.

iii. Mouse oncogenicity study. Acequinocyl technical was administered in the diet of Crl: CD 1( ICR) BR mice at 0, 20, 50, 150 or 500 ppm for 80 weeks. NOEL= 20 ppm ( lowest dose tested equal to 2.7 and 3.5 mg/ kg/ day in males and females respectively), based on brown pigmented cells. At 50 and 500 ppm in both sexes, there was an increase incidence of fatty hepatocytes. Other associated findings were increased liver weight, slight increase in pale livers or pale areas within livers. Glomerular amyloidosis was statistically increased in the 150 and 500 ppm males. Yellow brown urine was consistently found in both sexes at high dose. There was no increase in the incidence of tumors.] 5 6. Animal metabolism. [ Sprague Dawley rats were dosed orally with acequinocyl labeled 14C phenyl or 14C dodecyl. Both labels were used in the single low dose ( 10 mg/ kg) study. The high dose ( 500 mg/ kg) and 14 day repeat dose studies ( 10 mg/ kg/ day) were conducted with 14C phenyl acequinocyl only. Excretion was rapid, with most of the dose in the feces. Less than 15% of the radioactivity was found in the urine. Absorption was about 25 42% based on the bile duct cannulation studies, which found 20 33% of the administered dose in bile, plus 5 9% in urine plus cage wash. Acequinocyl was not detected in urine and was only a minor component ( 1 2%) in the feces. The major fecal metabolite ( 12 36%) was the 2 hydroxy 3 dodecyl 1,4 naphthalenedione ( acequinocyl OH or designated R1). Subsequent oxidation of the dodecyl chain yielded butanoic and hexanoic acids, the only measurable identified urinary metabolites. 2( 1,2 dioxotetradecyl) benzoic acid comprised 19 40% of the radioactivity in the feces. There were no remarkable differences in metabolite disposition due to gender and no effect of pre dosing for 2 weeks. The large dose slowed transit time and reduced absorption.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [ NA Remove]

8. Endocrine disruption. [ A standard battery of toxicity tests have been conducted on acequinocyl. No effects were seen to indicate that acequinocyl has an effect on the endocrine system.]

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. [ The tolerance of 0.02 ppm for tree nuts ( Crop Group 14) along with the currently established tolerances for acequinocyl were incorporated into the aggregate exposure results presented below. An aggregate risk assessment was conducted to include the potential chronic dietary exposure from applications of acequinocyl on tree nuts. Please note that tolerances on almonds and pistachios are already established. Therefore, this assessment only additionally incorporated the other tree nuts for which tolerances are not already established. This chronic risk assessment was conducted to assess dietary exposures from acequinocyl in food using DEEM ( Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model and the following input parameters: tolerance level residues; consumption data from the USDA 1994 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII); 100 percent crop treated for all commodities; default processing factors for all commodities; and a chronic toxicological endpoint of 2.7 mg/ kg bw ( NOAEL); 0.027 mg/ kg bw ( chronic RfD) from the chronic mouse study. Please note that EPA has determined that there is no endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose 6 and, therefore, an acute reference dose ( aRfD) was not established. Therefore, no acute exposure assessment is necessary ( FR, Vol. 69, No. 139, 7/ 21/ 04, page 43528).]

i. Food. [ The previous chronic dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl were all less than 100% of chronic RfD. When the previous risk assessment is revised to include all tree nuts, the chronic dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl are still less than 100% of chronic RfD. To be specific, exposure from all tree nuts has very little effect on the estimated chronic dietary food exposure as can be seen from the following: US population at 4.2%, females 13 49 at 2.4%, and all infants (< 1 year) at 13.8%. The most highly exposed population was children 1 2 years at 23.3%.]

ii. Drinking water. [ The available environmental fate data indicate that acequinocyl does not persist in the environment nor does it have the ability to leach into groundwater resources. Acequinocyl degrades rapidly in the environment. Aqueous photolyis T1/ 2: 14 minutes, soil photolyis T1/ 2: 2 days, aerobic soil metabolism ( 4 soils) T1/ 2: < 3 days, aerobic aquatic metabolism T1/ 2: 0.39 day in water and sediment, hydrolysis T1/ 2: pH4= 74 days, pH7= 2.2 days, pH9= 1.3 hours. Acequinocyl shows low soil mobility. The DWEC ( Drinking Water Estimated Concentration) for chronic exposures is estimated to be 0.24 ppb for surface water and 0.003 ppb for ground water. These values represent results of the PRZM/ EXAMS ( surface water) and SCI GROW models ( ground water) models ( FR, Vol. 69, No. 139, 7/ 21/ 04, page 43529), respectively since the proposed use on all tree nuts is not expected to result in higher environmental concentrations than those from the currently proposed uses. To determine drinking water exposure, DWLOCs ( drinking water levels of comparison) were calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of the pesticide concentration in drinking water. For acequinocyl, the chronic DWLOC values were greater than the estimated concentrations ( DWECs) in surface and ground water for each population group. Therefore, exposures to acequinocyl in drinking water do not pose a significant human health risk.]

2. Non dietary exposure. [ The proposed expansion of the registration for applications to all tree nut crops not already registered requires evaluation of occupational handler and postapplication exposures and dietary exposures for consumers. The proposed registration for applications by commercial applicators and residents to ornamentals in residential settings requires evaluation of occupational and residential handler exposures as well as residential postapplication exposures.

Occupational Handler Exposure: Short term MOEs for occupational handler exposures are estimated to range from 3,900 to 530,000, depending on the site and type of equipment 7 used. MOEs greater than 100 indicate a reasonable certainty of no harm is anticipated for occupational handlers making applications of Kanemite   15SC. Based on the anticipated occupational use patterns for acequinocyl products, intermediate term ( 1 month to 6 months) and long term ( several months to lifetime) exposures are not expected for occupational handlers of acequinocyl.

Occupational Postapplication Exposure: Estimated MOEs for re entry as soon as the spray has dried range from 960 to 13,000, demonstrating a reasonable certainty of no harm for workers who re enter treated crops on the day of application as soon as the sprays have dried.

Residential Handler exposure: MOEs for residential handler exposures associated with all types of handheld equipment are estimated to range from 2,900 to 430,000, depending on the type of equipment used.

Residential Postapplication exposures: Estimated MOEs are 2,900 for youth and 2,600 for adults, demonstrating a reasonable certainty of no harm for adults and youth engaging in postapplication activities in treated ornamentals on the day of application after sprays have dried.

In summary, all residential and occupational exposure scenarios are associated with a reasonable certainty of no harm for the US population and all subpopulations.]

D. Cumulative Effects [ There is no information available to indicate that toxic effects produced by acequinocyl are cumulative with those of any other compound.]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ The chronic dietary food exposure ( including all current and proposed uses) to acequinocyl was estimated at 4.2% of the cRfD for the total US population. The calculated DWLOCs ranged from 5,900 to 20,000 ppb ( short term residential aggregate) and 210 to 910 ppb ( long term residential aggregate). The surface and groundwater DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 0.24 ppb and 0.003 ppb, respectively. Since the chronic DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for all population subgroups, the chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern.] 8 2. Infants and children. [ The chronic dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 13.8% of cRfD for all infants (< 1 year), and 23.3% of cRfD for children 1 2 ( most highly exposed). The calculated DWLOCs for children 1 2 were 5,900 ppb ( short term residential aggregate) and 210 ppb ( long term residential aggregate). The surface and ground water DWECs for acequinocyl were estimated to be 0.24 ppb and 0.003 ppb, respectively. Since the chronic DWECs are less than the DWLOCs for children 1 2, the most highly exposed subpopulation, the chronic aggregate risk estimates are below the level of concern.]

F. International Tolerances [ To date, no Codex, Canadian or Mexican tolerances exists for acequinocyl.]


[Federal Register: September 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54031-54033]
[DOCID:fr03se10-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336; FRL-9191-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10;
Redesignation of the Coso Junction Planning Area to Attainment;
Approval of PM-10 Maintenance Plan for the Coso Junction Planning Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of California's request to
redesignate the Coso Junction planning area (CJPA) to attainment for
the particulate matter of ten microns or less (PM-10) national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is also approving the PM-10 emissions
inventory and the maintenance plan for the CJPA, including control
measures for Owens Lake, the primary cause of PM-10 nonattainment in
the CJPA. Finally, EPA is finding the contribution of motor vehicles to
the area's PM-10 problem insignificant; consequently, the State will
not have to complete a regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any
future transportation conformity determination for the CJPA.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action,
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0336, by one of the
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., Confidential Business Information). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. The Coso Junction PM-10 Monitoring Site
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On June 24, 2010 (75 FR 36023), based on EPA's review of the ``2010
PM-10 Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction
Planning Area,'' (the 2010 Plan) submitted by California, air quality
monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA proposed to approve
the State of California's request to redesignate the CJPA to attainment
of the PM-10 NAAQS, pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The background for today's actions is discussed
in detail in EPA's June 24 proposed rulemaking, and in EPA's
determination that the CJPA has attained the PM-10 NAAQS. 75 FR 13710
(March 23, 2010) and 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010).
    EPA proposed to approve the State's redesignation request, based on
EPA's determination that the most recent three years of complete,
quality-assured data for the period 2007-2009 showed that the CJPA had
attained the PM-10 NAAQS, and on EPA's finding that the area meets all
other CAA redesignation requirements under sections 107(d)(3)(E) and
175.
    EPA proposed to approve the State's maintenance plan, which
includes control measures for Owens Lake implemented through the Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) Board Order
080128-01 (Appendix C of the 2010 Plan). EPA's proposal
discussed the historical relationship between PM-10 emissions from
Owens Lake and violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, the
application of control measures on Owens Lake that have resulted in
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in the CJPA, and the continued controls
that are expected to provide for maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS into
the future. We also proposed to approve the emissions inventory
submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the requirements of
section 172(c)(3).
    Finally, EPA proposed to find that motor vehicle-related PM-10
emissions are insignificant contributors to the area's PM-10 problem.
As a result of this finding, the state would not have to complete a
regional emissions analysis for PM-10 in any future transportation
conformity determination for the CJPA.
    EPA's June 24, 2010 proposal was based on a ``parallel processing''
\1\ request from the State of California. 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
As expected, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2010
Plan on June 24, 2010 and submitted the 2010 Plan to EPA on July 14,
2010. The July 14, 2010 submittal is identical to the materials CARB
submitted for parallel processing on May 28, 2010. Consequently, there
is no need to revise our June 24, 2010 proposal and we may proceed with
today's final action on the basis of our prior proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Parallel processing is used for expediting the review of a
plan. Parallel processing allows a State to submit the plan prior to
actual adoption by the State and provides an opportunity for the
State to consider EPA comments prior to submittal of the final plan
for final review and action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Coso Junction PM-10 Monitoring Site

    In EPA's proposed rule, we noted that the GBUAPCD had determined
that the Coso Junction monitoring site had been violating siting
criteria since January 2010. 75 FR 36023, 36025. As discussed in the
proposed rule, during a site visit on May 27, 2010, the GBUAPCD learned
that the monitoring site had not been watered for several years
resulting in a lack of vegetation surrounding the site thus exposing
friable soils that could impact monitor readings. In addition, the
GBUAPCD learned that beginning in January 2010 a contractor for the
property owner, the Coso Operating Company, was driving over the
unpaved access road adjacent to the monitor on a regular basis, thus
causing the deterioration in the condition of the unpaved access road
which had previously been covered by gravel. This combination of events
near the monitor led the District to conclude that the data collected
from January 2010 through May 27, 2010 must be considered invalid for
regulatory purposes, and EPA agreed with the District's assessment.
Following the site visit, the District and the Coso Operating Company
promptly started to work on resolving the problems in order to be able
to again collect valid data as soon as possible. The Coso Operating
Company thereafter restricted traffic on the unpaved access road to the
monitor and moved the contractor's trailer to a location away from the
monitor site. The District and the Coso Operating Company also planned
to develop a mitigation plan to apply water to the

monitor site area and to re-vegetate the area. Id.
    Since our proposed rule, the GBUAPCD has reported that the new
location of the contractor's trailer does not require the contractors
to drive past the monitor site, the drive area around the monitor site
is now covered with gravel to reduce dust and the turning area pavement
was enlarged to prevent kicking up dust at the edges. See July 20, 2010
e-mail from Meredith Kurpius, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Assessment
Office, to Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Planning Office, Re: Summary of
monitoring issues that should be addressed by the Great Basin District.
The GBUAPCD has also reported that the Coso Operating Company has begun
watering of the area around the Coso Junction monitor site and that a
crust is beginning to form which will allow the District to begin
collecting valid data on August 1, 2010. See July 28, 2010 e-mail from
Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, GBUAPCD, to Doris Lo, EPA
Region 9, Air Planning Office, with attachments. The Coso Operating
Company has submitted to the GBUAPCD a dust control plan (or, as
referred to in the proposed rule, a mitigation plan) for the Coso
Junction monitor area which includes commitments for application and
monitoring of gravel, application of water to form a visual crust,
monitoring of the visual crust and reapplication of water as necessary,
re-vegetation in the fall season in areas that had previously been
vegetated, limiting road access to authorized personnel and providing
monthly status reports to GBUAPCD through June 2011. See attachment to
July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, ``Coso PM10 Containment Area
Fugitive Dust Plan.'' Moreover, the Coso Operating Company is required
by conditions in a permit to operate issued by GBUAPCD to maintain the
Coso Junction monitor site and to collect PM-10 samples using EPA-
approved reference or equivalent method samplers. See attachment to
July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade, Permit to Operate, Permit Number
234, conditions 27 and 36. Finally, the GBUAPCD plans to install a Web
camera to help monitor activities near the monitor site in the future.
See July 28, 2010 e-mail from Ted Schade to Doris Lo. EPA will continue
to work with the GBUACPD to ensure that the Coso Junction monitor site
issues are fully resolved and that the site is maintained in order for
the District to meet its commitment to continue daily PM-10 monitoring
at the Coso Junction monitoring site in order to verify continued
attainment of the PM-10 standard in the CJPA. See 75 FR 36023, 36030.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period on our proposed
action. This comment period ended on July 26, 2010. We received no
comments.

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Based on our review of the 2010 Plan submitted by the State, air
quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA believes the
State has satisfied all requirements for redesignation of the CJPA to
attainment, pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
Consequently, EPA is approving the State's request and is redesignating
the CJPA to attainment for the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the
maintenance plan for the CJPA, which includes as a SIP revision GBUAPCD
Board Order 080128-01. EPA is also approving the emissions
inventory submitted with the maintenance plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). Finally, EPA finds that motor
vehicle-related PM-10 emissions are insignificant contributors to the
area's PM-10 problem; consequently, a regional emissions analysis will
not be required for PM-10 in any future transportation conformity
determination for the CJPA, as of the effective date of this final
rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For these reasons,
these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the final action does not apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 29, 2010.
Jeff Scott,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(380) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (380) The following plan was submitted on July 14, 2010, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) ``Board Order 080128-01 Requiring the City of Los
Angeles to Undertake Measures to Control PM-10 Emissions from the Dried
Bed of Owens Lake,'' including Attachments A-D, adopted February 1,
2008, and included as Appendix C to the ``2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan
and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area,''
adopted May 17, 2010.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
    (1) Non-regulatory portions of ``The 2010 PM-10 Maintenance Plan
and Redesignation Request for the Coso Junction Planning Area'' (the
2010 Plan), including Appendices A, B, and D, adopted May 17, 2010.
    (2) Letter dated June 10, 2010 from Theodore D. Schade, GBUAPCD, to
Deborah Jordan, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Coso Junction PM-10 Contingency Measures.
    (3) GBUAPCD Board Resolution 2010-01, dated May 17, 2010, adopting
the 2010 Plan.
    (B) California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 10-25, dated June 24, 2010, adopting the 2010
Plan.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ``California-PM-10'' by
revising the entry under Inyo County for the ``Coso Junction planning
area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Date                Type                Date                Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo County
Coso Junction planning area.....  October 4, 2010...  Attainment........
That portion of Inyo County
 contained within Hydrologic
 Unit 18090205.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-21960 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41366-41370]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17488]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 134

July 13, 2011

Part III

Department of Commerce

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

Bureau of Industry and Security

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

15 CFR Parts 713 and 716

Impact of Reducing the Mixture Concentration Threshold for Commercial
Schedule 2A Chemical Activities Under the Chemical Weapons Convention
Regulations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Parts 713 and 716

RIN 0694-XA27
[Docket No. 100817370-0464-01]

Impact of Reducing the Mixture Concentration Threshold for
Commercial Schedule 2A Chemical Activities Under the Chemical Weapons
Convention Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is seeking public
comments on the impact of amending the Chemical Weapons Convention
Regulations (CWCR) to reduce the concentration level below which the
CWCR exempt certain mixtures containing a Schedule 2A chemical from the
declaration requirements that apply to Schedule 2A chemical production,
processing, and consumption under the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC). To make these declaration requirements consistent with the
international agreement adopted by the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), BIS is considering amending the CWCR to
replace the current low concentration exemption (a concentration of
``less than 30%'' by volume or weight) with a two-tiered low
concentration exemption that is based, in part, on whether the total
amount of a Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or consumed at
one or more plants on a plant site during a calendar year is less than
the applicable verification threshold in the CWCR. Under this two-
tiered approach, the declaration and reporting requirements in the CWCR
would not apply to a chemical mixture containing a Schedule 2A chemical
if: The concentration of the Schedule 2A chemical in the mixture is
``1% or less,'' or the concentration of the Schedule 2A chemical in the
mixture is ``more than 1%, but less than or equal to 10%,'' and the
annual amount of the Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or
consumed is less than the relevant verification threshold. Legislative
amendment of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA)
is required in order to implement this proposed amendment to the CWCR.
    In addition, at U.S. national discretion, BIS is considering
amending the CWCR to require declarations/reports for exports and
imports of any mixtures that contain ``more than 10%'' of a Schedule 2A
chemical by volume or weight (whichever method yields the lesser
percentage), if the total quantity of the Schedule 2A chemical exported
or imported during a calendar year exceeds the applicable CWCR
declaration threshold.

DATES: Comments are due August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the phrase ``Schedule
2A Notice of Inquiry'' in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Attn: Willard Fisher). Please alert
the Regulatory Policy Division, by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, if you are
faxing comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Willard Fisher, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Regulatory
Policy Division, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705,
Washington, DC 20230.

Send comments regarding the collection of information identified in
this notice of inquiry, including suggestions for reducing the burden,
to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>; and to
the Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security,
Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room
2705, Washington, DC 20230. Comments on this collection of information
should be submitted separately from comments on the notice of inquiry--
all comments on the latter should be submitted by one of the three
methods outlined above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on the Chemical Weapons
Convention requirements for Schedule 2A and 2A* chemicals, contact
Douglas Brown, Treaty Compliance Division, Office of Nonproliferation
and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For questions on the submission of
comments, contact Willard Fisher, Regulatory Policy Division, Office of
Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction,
commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC or the
Convention), is an international arms control and nonproliferation
treaty that established the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to implement the verification provisions of the
treaty. A major objective of the CWC is to verify that lawful
activities of chemical producers and users are not converted to
unlawful activities related to chemical weapons. Consistent with this
objective, the CWC imposes a number of obligations on countries that
have ratified the CWC (States Parties). In this regard, the CWC
establishes a comprehensive verification scheme and requires the
declaration and inspection of facilities that produce, process, or
consume certain ``scheduled'' chemicals (i.e., Schedule 1, Schedule 2,
and Schedule 3 chemicals) and unscheduled discrete organic chemicals
(UDOCs), many of which have significant commercial applications. The
CWC also requires States Parties to report exports and imports and to
impose export and import restrictions on certain chemicals. These
requirements apply to all entities under the jurisdiction and control
of States Parties, including commercial entities and individuals.
    To ensure the implementation of this verification scheme on a
national level, the CWC requires each State Party to enact legislation
that prohibits the production, storage and use of chemical weapons, and
to establish a National Authority to serve as a liaison with the OPCW
and other States Parties. The CWC also requires that each State Party
implement a comprehensive data declaration \1\ and inspection regime
\2\ to

provide transparency and to verify that both the public and private
sectors of States Parties are not engaged in activities prohibited
under the CWC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the United States, facilities that have data declaration
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR)
(15 CFR Parts 710-722), because they engage in certain activities
involving scheduled chemicals or unscheduled discrete organic
chemicals, must submit the appropriate declaration forms to the
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). Such facilities are treated
as ``declared'' facilities under the CWCR and their facility-
specific information is transmitted by the U.S. to the OPCW.
Entities that are ``undeclared'' facilities or trading companies,
whose obligations under the CWCR are limited to certain export and/
or import activities, must submit the appropriate report forms to
BIS--their facility-specific information is not transmitted by the
U.S. to the OPCW (i.e., the information is aggregated prior to
transmission to the OPCW). ``Declared'' facilities also must submit
export/import information to BIS if such activities are subject to
the declaration/reporting requirements of the CWCR.
    \2\ Each State Party to the CWC, including the United States,
has agreed to allow certain inspections of ``declared'' facilities
by inspection teams employed by the OPCW to ensure that the
activities of such facilities comply with CWC requirements. BIS is
responsible for leading, hosting and escorting inspections of all
facilities subject to the provisions of the CWCR. (See 15 CFR part
716 for the types of activities that are subject to inspection and
specific inspection thresholds.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice of inquiry addresses the CWC requirements that apply to
certain mixtures that contain a Schedule 2 chemical. Part VII,
paragraph 5 of the Verification Annex to the CWC (``Schedule 2
Regime'') provides that declarations ``are generally not required for
mixtures containing a low concentration of a Schedule 2 chemical'' and
that the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention will
consider and approve guidelines to establish the appropriate low
concentration level. Schedule 2 chemicals, as set forth in the
Convention's ``Annex on Chemicals,'' include those chemicals and
precursors identified in the Convention as posing a ``significant''
risk to the object and purpose of the Convention.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The CWC ``Annex on Chemicals'' groups scheduled chemicals
(i.e, Schedules 1, 2, and 3) according to the level of risk to the
``object and purpose'' of the CWC, with Schedule 1 chemicals
representing the highest level of risk and Schedule 3 chemicals, the
lowest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements of the CWC, the Chemical Weapons
Implementation Act of 1998 (CWCIA) (22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.), which was
enacted on October 21, 1998, authorizes the United States to require
the U.S. chemical industry and other private entities to submit
declarations, notifications and other reports and to provide access for
on-site inspections conducted by inspectors sent by the OPCW. Section
402(a)(1) of the CWCIA established 10% as the concentration limit of
any Schedule 2 chemical (i.e. Schedule 2A, 2A*, or 2B chemicals) \4\ in
a mixture, below which the CWC's declaration, reporting and inspection
requirements do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Schedule 2 in the CWC ``Annex on Chemicals'' contains the
subcategories 2A and 2B. Schedule 2A chemicals consist of those
Schedule 2 chemicals that are identified as ``toxic'' chemicals.
Schedule 2B chemicals consist of those Schedule 2 chemicals that are
identified as ``precursor'' chemicals. One chemical within the
subcategory Schedule 2A (i.e., ``BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate'') is
designated as a Schedule 2A* chemical, because it has a lower
declaration threshold and a lower inspection/verification threshold
than the other Schedule 2A chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) administers the Chemical
Weapons Convention Regulations (CWCR) (15 CFR Parts 710-722), which
implement provisions of the CWCIA. Currently, the CWCR do not require
that the quantity of a Schedule 2A chemical contained in a mixture be
counted for declaration or reporting purposes if the concentration of
the Schedule 2A chemical in the mixture is ``less than 30%'' by volume
or weight, whichever yields the lesser percentage. This low
concentration exemption was implemented by BIS in the CWCR in 1999,
prior to the 2009 approval by the Conference of the States Parties to
the Convention of guidelines, as described below, that established the
low concentration exemption for mixtures containing Schedule 2
chemicals, in accordance with the Schedule 2 Regime.
    The CWCR currently apply a 30% low concentration threshold to the
application of the Schedule 2A chemical declaration, reporting, and
inspection requirements, rather than the 10% low concentration
threshold established by the CWCIA, in order to ensure that the
chemical mixture requirements in the CWCR are compatible with the
export requirements in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15
CFR parts 730-774) that apply to certain scheduled chemical precursors
(including mixtures that contain these precursors). Although the
Schedule 2A chemical low concentration threshold in the CWCR is higher
than the low concentration threshold established by CWCIA, it is
consistent with the CWCIA because it still exempts mixtures that
contain Schedule 2A chemicals at a concentration level below 10% from
the declaration, reporting, and inspection requirements of the CWC.
However, legislative amendment of the CWCIA will be required prior to
any change in the CWCR low concentration threshold that would reduce
this threshold below the 10% low concentration threshold established by
the CWCIA.
    The declaration, reporting, and inspection/verification
requirements in the CWC that affect commercial activities involving
Schedule 2 chemicals are described in parts 713 and 716 of the CWCR.
These CWCR provisions:
    (1) Require annual declarations by certain facilities (i.e.,
``declared'' Schedule 2 ``plant sites'') that were engaged in the
production, processing, or consumption of a Schedule 2A chemical during
any of the three previous calendar years, or which anticipate engaging
in such activities in the next calendar year, in excess of the
following quantities (declaration thresholds):
    (a) 100 kilograms of chemical Amiton: 0,0 Diethyl S-[2-
(diethylamino) ethyl] phosphorothiolate and corresponding alkylated or
protonated salts;
    (b) 100 kilograms of chemical PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-
2(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene; or
    (c) 1 kilogram of chemical BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (15 CFR
Sec.  713.2(a)(1));
    (2) Require that the calculation of the quantity of any Schedule 2
chemical that is produced, processed or consumed must include the
quantities produced, processed or consumed in mixtures, if the
concentration of the Schedule 2 chemical in the mixture is equal to or
greater than 30% by volume or by weight, whichever yields the lesser
percentage (15 CFR 713.2(a)(3));
    (3) Define Schedule 2 chemical production to include all steps in
the production of a Schedule 2 chemical in any units within the same
plant through chemical reaction, including any associated processes
(e.g., purification, separation, extraction, distillation, or refining)
in which the chemical is not converted into another chemical (15 CFR
713.2(a)(2));
    (4) Provide that all ``declared Schedule 2'' plant sites are
subject to initial and routine inspection by the OPCW (15 CFR
713.2(e));
    (5) Require plant sites, trading companies, and any other person
subject to the CWCR to submit annual declarations/reports of all
exports and imports of any Schedule 2 chemical to, or from, other
destinations if the total quantity exported or imported exceeds the
applicable declaration threshold (15 CFR 713.3); and
    (6) Define inspection/verification thresholds for the production,
processing, or consumption, during the calendar year of a Schedule 2A
chemical as being in excess of the following quantities:
    (a) 1 metric ton (MT) of chemical Amiton: 0,0 Diethyl S [2
(diethylamino) ethyl] phosphorothiolate and corresponding alkylated or
protonated salts;
    (b) 1 MT of chemical PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-
2(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene; or
    (c) 10 kg of chemical BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (15 CFR
716.1(b)(2)).
    During the OPCW's 14th Conference of the States Parties, which was
held in The Hague, the Netherlands, on December 2, 2009, the States
Parties to the CWC agreed that the CWC's declaration and reporting
requirements would not apply to a chemical mixture containing a
Schedule 2A chemical if: (1) The concentration of the Schedule 2A
chemical in the mixture is ``1% or less'' or (2) the concentration of
the Schedule 2A chemical in the mixture is ``more than 1%, but less
than or equal to 10%,'' and the annual amount of the Schedule 2A
chemical produced, processed, or consumed is less than the

relevant verification threshold. As previously indicated, a low
concentration exemption of ``less than 30%'' currently applies to
Schedule 2 chemicals in the United States under the CWCR. The OPCW
agreement is documented in OPCW Decision C-14/DEC.4 and can be obtained
from the OPCW Web site (http://www.opcw.org). Amendment to the CWCIA
and CWCR is necessary to implement these new OPCW guidelines.
    In addition, during the OPCW's 5th Conference of the States
Parties, which was held in The Hague, the Netherlands, on May 19, 2000,
the States Parties to the CWC agreed that the CWC's declaration
requirements would not apply to a chemical mixture containing a
Schedule 2B chemical or a Schedule 3 chemical if the concentration of
the Schedule 2B chemical or the Schedule 3 chemical in the mixture is
``30% or less.'' The impact of this CWC agreement on the declaration
requirements for Schedule 2B chemicals is expected to be modest because
the amount of a Schedule 2B chemical in a mixture is currently exempted
from the declaration requirements in the CWCR if the concentration of
the Schedule 2B chemical in the mixture is ``less than 30%.'' BIS will
address the impact of these new CWC guidelines on Schedule 3 chemical
declaration requirements in a separate rulemaking. The CWC agreement is
documented in OPCW Decision C-V/DEC.19 and can be obtained from the
OPCW Web site (http://www.opcw.org).

Discussion and Request for Comments

    Section 713.2(a) of the CWCR requires submission of a declaration
from a plant site if one or more plants at that plant site produced,
processed or consumed a Schedule 2A chemical during any of the three
previous calendar years, or anticipate doing so in the next calendar
year, in excess of the quantity specified (the declaration threshold)
for a Schedule 2A chemical. A plant site is subject to inspection/
verification if it produced, processed or consumed a Schedule 2A
chemical during any of the three previous calendar years, or
anticipates doing so in the next calendar year, in excess of ten times
the applicable declaration threshold for a Schedule 2A chemical (the
verification threshold). Currently, the CWCR require that the quantity
of a Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed or consumed in mixtures
be included in the calculation of the annual quantity of Schedule 2A
chemicals produced, processed or consumed only if the mixture contains
30% or more by weight or volume (whichever yields the lesser
percentage) of the Schedule 2A chemical.
    To make these CWCR requirements consistent with OPCW Decision C-14/
DEC.4, BIS is considering amending the CWCR to establish a two-tiered
low concentration exemption for certain mixtures containing Schedule 2A
chemicals. The two tiers would be based, in part, on whether the total
Schedule 2A chemical production, processing, or consumption at one or
more plants on a plant site during a calendar year is less than the
applicable verification threshold in the CWCR.
    Under the first tier, a mixture that contains a Schedule 2A
chemical at a concentration of ``1% or less'' by volume or weight
(whichever method yields the lesser percentage) would be exempt from
the CWCR declaration requirements for Schedule 2A chemicals and, as
such, none of the Schedule 2A chemical in the mixture would have to be
counted for declaration purposes. Furthermore, the amount of the
Schedule 2A chemical in such a mixture would be exempt from the CWCR
Schedule 2A declaration requirements regardless of the total amount of
the Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or consumed at one or
more plants on a plant site during a calendar year. Under the second
tier, a mixture that contains a Schedule 2A chemical at a concentration
of ``more than 1%, but less than or equal to 10%,'' by volume or weight
(whichever method yields the lesser percentage) would be exempt from
the CWCR declaration requirements for Schedule 2A chemicals, provided
that the total amount of a Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or
consumed at one or more plants on a plant site during a calendar year
is less than the applicable verification threshold.
    Also, BIS is considering amending the threshold level at which the
CWCR would require declarations/reports on exports and imports of
Schedule 2A chemicals contained in mixtures. Under the changes being
considered by BIS, the CWCR would require declarations/reports on
exports and imports of a Schedule 2A chemical contained in a mixture at
a concentration of ``more than 10%'' by volume or weight (whichever
yields the lesser percentage), if the total quantity of the Schedule 2A
chemical exported or imported during a calendar year exceeds the
applicable declaration threshold. Currently, the CWCR require that
exports and imports of a Schedule 2 chemical in a mixture be counted
for declaration/reporting \5\ purposes if the concentration of the
Schedule 2 chemical in the mixture is ``30% or more'' by volume or
weight (whichever yields the lesser percentage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Declared'' facilities that engaged in certain export and/
or import activities involving Schedule 2 chemicals must submit such
export/import information as part of their declarations, if the
exported/imported chemicals are the same as those chemicals that
were declared as produced, processed, and/or consumed by such
facilities. ``Declared'' facilities that engaged in export and/or
import activities involving Schedule 2 chemicals that were different
from those produced, processed, and/or consumed by such facilities
above the applicable declaration threshold must report such
activities to BIS either with their respective declarations or in a
separate report. ``Undeclared'' facilities or trading companies that
engaged in export and/or import activities involving Schedule 2
chemicals also must report such information to BIS. (See Section
713.3(a) of the CWCR and the Notes thereto.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The impact of implementing OPCW Decision C-14/DEC.4 in the CWCR is
illustrated, below, by using the production of the Schedule 2A chemical
Perfluoroisobutene (PFIB), also known as 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene, as an example. The CWCR implement the
declaration requirements in the CWC that apply if at least one plant at
a plant site produces, processes, or consumes more than 100 kg of PFIB
during a calendar year (i.e., the declaration threshold for PFIB).
Additionally, the CWCR impose the CWC inspection/verification
requirements for the production, processing, or consumption of more
than 1 MT of PFIB (i.e., the verification threshold for PFIB). Using
the declaration and verification thresholds for PFIB, a number of
possible scenarios are described below to clarify how these proposed
amendments would operate in practice.
    (1) If the calendar year production of PFIB at one or more plants
on a plant site totaled 90 kg of PFIB as a mixture containing PFIB at a
concentration of 11%, then the Schedule 2A chemical declaration
requirements in the CWCR would not apply, because the total amount of
PFIB produced by one or more plants on the plant site did not exceed
the declaration threshold of 100 kg. In addition, if the plant site (or
a person or trading company) exported or imported a total of 90 kg of
PFIB as a mixture containing PFIB at a concentration of 11%, then the
CWCR declaration/reporting requirements for exports and imports of
Schedule 2A chemicals would not apply, because the total amount of PFIB
exported or imported did not exceed the applicable declaration/
reporting threshold for exports or imports (100 kg). In both scenarios,
the concentration of PFIB in

the mixture is irrelevant, because the total quantity of PFIB did not
exceed the applicable declaration and/or reporting threshold.
    (2) If the calendar year production of PFIB at one or more plants
on a plant site totaled 1.1 MT of PFIB as a mixture containing PFIB at
a concentration of 1%, then the Schedule 2A chemical declaration
requirements in the CWCR would not apply to the quantity of PFIB in the
mixture. This would be the outcome under the new low concentration
exemption being considered by BIS, because the amount of PFIB in
mixtures containing 1% or less of PFIB does not have to be counted, for
purposes of the Schedule 2A declaration requirements, even if the total
amount of PFIB produced, processed, or consumed at one or more plants
on a plant site exceeds the applicable verification threshold (1 MT).
If such a mixture were exported or imported, then the CWCR declaration/
reporting requirements for exports or imports of Schedule 2A chemicals
would not apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture, because the
concentration of PFIB in the mixture (1% PFIB) does not exceed the 10%
low concentration exemption for mixtures containing Schedule 2A
chemicals.
    (3) If the calendar year production of PFIB at one or more plants
on a plant site totaled 900 kg of PFIB as a mixture containing PFIB at
a concentration of 10%, then the Schedule 2A declaration requirements
in the CWCR would not apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture,
because the total amount of PFIB produced at one or more plants on the
plant site did not exceed the 1 MT verification threshold and,
therefore, the 10% low concentration exemption for mixtures containing
Schedule 2A chemicals would apply (i.e., the amount of PFIB in mixtures
containing PFIB at a concentration of 10% or less does not have to be
counted for purposes of the CWCR declaration requirements for the
production, processing, or consumption of Schedule 2A chemicals when
the total amount of PFIB produced, processed, or consumed at one or
more plants on a plant site during a calendar year does not exceed the
applicable verification threshold). If a plant site (or a person or
trading company) exported or imported the same quantity of PFIB (900
kg) as a mixture containing 10% PFIB, then the CWCR declaration/
reporting requirements for exports or imports of Schedule 2A chemicals
would not apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture. This is because
even though the total amount of PFIB exported or imported (900 kg)
exceeds the applicable CWCR declaration threshold (100 kg), a mixture
that contains 10% PFIB would not exceed the 10% low concentration
exemption for mixtures containing Schedule 2A chemicals.
    (4) If the calendar year production of PFIB at one or more plants
on a plant site totaled 1.1 MT of PFIB as a mixture containing a
concentration of 10% PFIB, then the Schedule 2A declaration
requirements in the CWCR would apply to the quantity of PFIB in the
mixture, because 1.1 MT of PFIB exceeds the 1 MT verification
threshold, which means that the applicable low concentration exemption
for mixtures containing Schedule 2A chemicals would be 1% or less,
instead of 10% or less (the latter exemption level applies when the
total amount of PFIB produced, processed, or consumed at one or more
plants at a plant site does not exceed the 1 MT verification
threshold). Under these circumstances, the amount of PFIB in mixtures
of PFIB with a concentration of more than 1% must be included in the
calculation of the amount produced, processed, or consumed, for
declaration purposes. If a plant site (or a person or trading company)
exported or imported the same quantity of PFIB (1.1 MT) as a mixture
containing PFIB at a concentration of 10%, the CWCR declaration/
reporting requirements for exports or imports of Schedule 2A chemicals
would not apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture, because a
mixture containing 10% PFIB does not exceed the 10% low concentration
exemption for mixtures containing Schedule 2A chemicals.
    (5) If the calendar year production of PFIB at one or more plants
on a plant site totaled 900 kg of PFIB as a mixture containing PFIB at
a concentration of 11%, then the declaration requirements in the CWCR
would apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture, because 900 kg of
PFIB exceeds the 100 kg declaration threshold and a mixture that
contains PFIB at a concentration of 11% exceeds the 10% low
concentration exemption, which applies when the total amount of a
Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or consumed at one or more
plants at a plant site does not exceed the verification threshold (1 MT
of PFIB). Under these circumstances, the quantity of PFIB in mixtures
containing PFIB at a concentration of more than 10% must be included in
the calculation of the amount produced, processed, or consumed, for
declaration purposes. If a plant site (or a person or trading company)
exported or imported the same quantity of PFIB (900 kg) as a mixture
containing PFIB at a concentration of 11%, then the CWCR declaration/
reporting requirements for exports or imports of Schedule 2A chemicals
would apply to the quantity of PFIB in the mixture because the total
amount of PFIB exported or imported (900 kg) exceeds the applicable
declaration/reporting requirement threshold in the CWCR (100 kg) and a
mixture that contains PFIB at a concentration of 11% exceeds the 10%
low concentration exemption for mixtures containing Schedule 2A
chemicals.
    BIS is seeking public comments on the potential effects of amending
the CWCR declaration requirements that apply to the production,
processing, and consumption of Schedule 2A chemicals by reducing the
concentration level at which certain mixtures containing low
concentrations of Schedule 2A chemicals would be exempt from these
requirements. Specifically, the current exemption, which applies when
the concentration of the Schedule 2A chemical in the mixture is ``less
than 30%'' by volume or weight (whichever method yields the lesser
percentage), would be replaced by a two-tiered exemption under which
the following mixtures would be exempt: (1) Mixtures containing a
Schedule 2A chemical at a concentration of ``1% or less'' by volume or
weight (whichever method yields the lesser percentage) and (2) mixtures
containing a Schedule 2A chemical at a concentration of ``more than 1%,
but less than or equal to 10%'' by volume or weight (whichever method
yields the lesser percentage), provided that the total amount of the
Schedule 2A chemical produced, processed, or consumed at one or more
plants on a plant site during a calendar year is less than the
applicable verification threshold in the CWCR. The public comments
received in response to this notice of inquiry will assist BIS in
assessing the impact of this change on U.S. persons involved in the
production, processing, or consumption of Schedule 2A chemicals.
    Additionally, BIS is seeking public comments on the potential
effects of amending the CWCR declaration/reporting requirements that
apply to certain exports or imports of Schedule 2A chemicals by
reducing the exemption for mixtures containing low concentrations of
Schedule 2A chemicals from the current level of ``less than 30%'' by
volume or weight (whichever yields the lesser percentage) to a
concentration of ``10% or less'' by volume or weight (whichever yields
the lesser percentage). In particular, BIS seeks comments on the
potential impact of these changes on costs, operations, and trade.

    Finally, BIS is seeking public comments on the anticipated impact
of these changes with respect to an existing collection of information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
(PRA). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. The changes that
are being considered by BIS would revise an existing collection of
information subject to the requirements of the PRA. This collection has
been approved by OMB under Control Number 0694-0091 (Chemical Weapons
Convention--Declaration and Report Forms), which carries burden hour
estimates of 10.6 hours for Schedule 1 Chemicals, 11.9 hours for
Schedule 2 chemicals, 2.5 hours for Schedule 3 chemicals, 5.3/5.1/5.1
hours for unscheduled discrete organic chemicals (includes Annual
Declaration on Past Activities, No Changes Authorization Form, and
Change in Inspection Status Form, respectively), and 0.17 hours for
Schedule 1 notifications.
    Specifically, these changes would affect this approved information
collection with respect to information collection activities (e.g.,
declarations, reports, recordkeeping) involving CWC Schedule 2A
chemicals that are subject to declaration and/or reporting requirements
under the CWCR. In this regard, BIS is seeking comments that address
the anticipated impact of the changes being considered by BIS on the
burden hours and costs associated with Schedule 2A chemical activities
under this approved information collection.
    Send comments regarding this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and to the Regulatory Policy Division,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, as indicated
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Submission of Comments

    All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this
notice. The Department requires that all comments be submitted in
written form.
    The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to
do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of
comments will close on August 12, 2011. The Department will consider
all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments
received after the end of the comment period will be considered if
possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department
will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of
the material be treated confidentially because of its business
proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return
such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and
will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this
notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for
public inspection and copying.
    The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S.
Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This
office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you
have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's
Office of Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, for assistance.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-17488 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15091-15093]
[DOCID:fr30mr07-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0021]
RIN 1218-AC11

Announcement of Additional Stakeholder Meetings on Occupational
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Announcement of additional stakeholder meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
invites interested parties to participate in or observe informal
stakeholder meetings on Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation.
These meetings are a continuation of OSHA's information collection
efforts on ionizing radiation.

DATES: Stakeholder meetings: The stakeholder meeting dates are:
    1. 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m., April 19, 2007, Chicago, IL.
    2. 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., April 26, 2007, Washington, DC.
    Notice of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting: You must
submit a notice of intention to attend (i.e., to participate or
observe) the Chicago, IL or Washington, DC, stakeholder meeting by
April 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Stakeholder meetings: The stakeholder meeting locations are:
    1. Crown Plaza Chicago O'Hare, 5440 North River Road, Rosemont, IL
60018.
    2. Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting: You may
submit your notice of intention to attend (i.e., to participate or
observe) a stakeholder meeting by any of the following methods:
    Electronic: OSHA encourages you to submit your notice of intention
to attend to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Facsimile: You may fax your notice of intention to attend to (202)
693-1678.
    Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger and
courier service: Submit your notice of intention to attend to Liset
Navas, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Department of Labor's and OSHA's
normal hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: For further information on the stakeholder meetings
and

submitting notices of intention to attend (i.e., to participate or
observe) one of the meetings, see the ``Public Participation'' heading
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of notices of intention to
attend. For information about security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express mail, messenger or courier
service, please contact Liset Navas at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This document, non-attributed notes from

the stakeholder meetings, as well as news releases and other relevant
information, will also be available at OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Seymour, Director, OSHA,
Office of Physical Hazards, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room
N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The use of ionizing radiation has increased significantly in recent
years. Today, ionizing radiation is used in a wide variety of
workplaces and operations, including security operations, hospitals and
medical offices, dental offices, manufacturing worksites, research
facilities, forestry and other agricultural worksites, and wastewater
treatment plants.
    In 2005, OSHA initiated information collection efforts to obtain
data, information, and comment on the increased workplace use of
ionizing radiation and other related issues. These efforts started with
the publication of a Request for Information (RFI) on May 3, 2005 (70
FR 22828). OSHA received 51 comments in response to the RFI. To
supplement this information, OSHA is inviting interested parties to
attend informal stakeholder meetings on the Occupational Exposure to
Ionizing Radiation. OSHA will use the data and materials obtained
through these information collections efforts to determine, in
conjunction with other Federal agencies, whether regulatory action is
necessary is protect employees from ionizing radiation exposure.
    OSHA's existing standard on Ionizing Radiation (29 CFR 1910.1096)
was adopted in 1971 pursuant to section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651, 655). The standard has
remained largely unchanged since that time.
    OSHA's Ionizing Radiation standard applies to all workplaces except
agricultural operations and those workplaces exempted from OSHA
jurisdiction under section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 653).
Section 4(b)(1) states:

    Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of
employees with respect to which other Federal agencies, and State
agencies acting under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021), exercise statutory authority to
prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational
safety and health.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has statutory authority for
licensing and regulating nuclear facilities and materials as mandated
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.),
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (as amended), the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978, and other applicable statutes.
Specifically, the NRC has the authority to regulate source, byproduct
and certain special nuclear materials (e.g., nuclear reactor fuel).
This authority covers radiation hazards in NRC-licensed nuclear
facilities produced by radioactive materials and plant conditions that
affect the safety of radioactive materials and thus present an
increased radiation hazard to workers.
    In 1988, OSHA and NRC signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
delineating the general areas of responsibility of each agency (CPL
2.86, December 22, 1989). The MOU specifies that at NRC-licensed
facilities OSHA has authority to regulate occupational ionizing
radiation sources not regulated by NRC (CPL 2.86). Examples of non-NRC
regulated radiation sources include X-ray equipment, accelerators,
electron microscopes, betatrons, and some naturally occurring radiation
sources (CPL 2.86). (See the Ionizing Radiation RFI (70 FR 22828) for
additional information on sources of ionizing radiation exposure,
workplace uses of ionizing radiation, and health effects of ionizing
radiation exposure.)
    Most recently, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized NRC to
regulate material made radioactive by accelerators by adding
``accelerator-produced material'' to the definition of ``byproduct
material'' that NRC is authorized to license and regulate. The Energy
Policy Act directed NRC to issue licensing and compliance oversight
regulations to carry out the legislation. Until NRC issues and begins
enforcing those regulations, OSHA retains authority over both
accelerators and the materials they produce.

Stakeholder Meetings

    OSHA intended to hold four stakeholder meetings on Occupational
Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, the first two meetings covering the
healing arts and industrial radiography, were announced on March 5,
2007 in the Federal Register (72 FR 9716). The healing arts stakeholder
meeting was held in Washington, DC on March 16, 2007 and the industrial
radiography was scheduled to be held on March 26, 2007 in Orlando,
Florida but, was cancelled due to lack of participation. The Agency is
announcing in this notice the third and fourth meetings. The third
scheduled stakeholder meeting, to be held in Chicago, IL, will cover
the non-medical or security use of accelerators. The fourth scheduled
stakeholder meeting, to be held in Washington, DC will cover the use of
ionizing radiation in security activities. OSHA encourages interested
parties to attend only the stakeholder meeting that deals with their
industry, occupation, or operation.
    The stakeholder meetings will be an opportunity for informal
discussion and the exchange of data, ideas, and points of view. To make
the stakeholder meetings as productive as possible, OSHA requests that
interested parties attending stakeholder meetings be prepared to
discuss the following issues relating to occupational exposure to
ionizing radiation in their respective industries, occupations, or
operations:
     Uses of ionizing radiation;
     Available exposure data;
     Controls utilized to minimize exposure; and
     Training.
    In addition, OSHA will use the stakeholder meetings to discuss
comments and materials received in response to the RFI.
    Each stakeholder meeting will begin with OSHA's presentation on
Agency responsibilities related to occupational exposure to ionizing
radiation followed by stakeholder questions. OSHA will devote the
remainder of each meeting to informal discussions on the topics above
and related issues. In particular, OSHA is interested in hearing
firsthand from employers and employees and in reviewing exposure data.
Meeting participants are not expected to prepare and present formal
testimony.

Public Participation--Submission of Notices of Intention To Attend and
Access To Docket

    You must submit a notice of intention to attend if you wish to
participate in or observe a stakeholder meeting. You may submit notices
of intention to attend one of the stakeholder meetings (1)

electronically, (2) by facsimile, or (3) by hard copy. All notices must
identify the Agency name and docket number for this notice (Docket No.
OSHA-2007-0021). Because of security-related procedures, the use of
regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of notices of
intention to attend. For information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express mail, messenger
or courier service, please contact Liset Navas at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Notices of intention to attend a stakeholder meeting must include
the following information:
     Name and contact information;
     Affiliation (e.g., organization, association), if any;
     The stakeholder meeting you plan to attend;
     Whether you wish to be an active participant or observer;
and
     Whether you need any special accommodations in order to
attend or participate in a stakeholder meeting.
    For access to comments and materials received in response to the
RFI, go to OSHA Docket No. H-016 on OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.
 Contact the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-016, Room N-

2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627) for information about materials in the RFI docket that
are not available through OSHA's Web page and for assistance in using
the Web page to locate docket submissions.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases and

other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

Authority

    This notice was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
It is issued under Sections 4 and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 657), and Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC on this 26th day of March, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-5871 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77077-77078]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0390; FRL-9375-5]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses

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 January 30, 2013.

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 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. The division and mail code is listed
above in this paragraph.

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 and EPA File Symbol: 264-1049 and 72155-
RNO. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0946. Applicant: Bayer
CropScience, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, P. O. Box 12014, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active Ingredient: Spirotetramat. Product
Type: Insecticide. Proposed Uses: Residential use--outdoor. Contact:
Rita Kumar,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. EPA Registration Number: 524-591. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0829. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450
East, Washington DC 20005, (a member of the Acetochlor Registration
Partnership, (ARP)). Active Ingredient: Acetochlor. Product Type:
Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Sugar beet and peanut. Contact: Hope Johnson,
(703) 305-5410, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. EPA File Symbol: 39039-EN. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0981. Applicant: Y-Tex Corporation, P.O. Box 1450, 1825 Big Horn Ave.,
Cody, WY 82414-1450. Active Ingredients: zeta-cypermethrin and
Piperonyl butoxide. Product Type: Insecticide. Proposed Use: To control
darkling beetles in poultry house litter. Contact: Linda DeLuise, (703)
305-5428, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. EPA Registration Number: 56228-10. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0910. Applicant: U. S. Department

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River
Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737. Active Ingredient: Starlicide.
Product Type: Avicide. Proposed Use: Eurasian collared dove. Contact:
Jennifer Gaines,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: December 21, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-31375 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59209]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24887]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X-17F-1A. SEC File No. 270-29, OMB
Control No. 3235-0037.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-
1(c) (17 CFR 240.17f-1(c) and Form X-17F-1A (17 CFR 249.100) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17f-1(c) requires approximately 15,500 entities in the
securities industry to report lost, stolen, missing, or counterfeit
securities certificates to the Commission or its designee, to a
registered transfer agent for the issue, and, when criminal activity is
suspected, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Such entities are
required to use Form X-17F-1A to make such reports. Filing these
reports fulfills a statutory requirement that reporting institutions
report and inquire about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen
securities. Since these reports are compiled in a central database, the
rule facilitates reporting institutions to access the database that
stores information for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program.
    We estimate that 15,500 reporting institutions will report that
securities certificates are either missing, lost, counterfeit, or
stolen annually and that each reporting institution will submit this
report 30 times each year. The staff estimates that the average amount
of time necessary to comply with Rule 17f-1(c) and Form X17F-1A is five
minutes per submission. The total burden is 38,750 hours annually for
the entire industry (15,500 times 30 times 5 divided by 60).
    Rule 17f-1(c) is a reporting rule and does not specify a retention
period. The rule requires an incident-based reporting requirement by
the reporting institutions when securities certificates are discovered
to be missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen. Registering under Rule
17f-1(c) is mandatory to obtain the benefit of a central database that
stores information about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen
securities for the Lost and Stolen Securities Program. Reporting
institutions required to register under Rule 17f-1(c) will not be kept
confidential; however, the Lost and Stolen Securities Program database
will be kept confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street, NE Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24887 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P