[Federal Register: February 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 39)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10390-10396]
[DOCID:fr27fe08-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0857; FRL-8350-3]

Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
cyfluthrin in or on grass, forage, fodder and hay group 17, forage at
12 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay at 50 ppm; beet,
sugar, roots at 0.10 ppm; and beet, sugar, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), and Bayer CropScience
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 27, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 28, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0857. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0857 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before April 28, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0857, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Registers of October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63011) (FRL-
8100-2), and May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26372) (FRL-8121-5) EPA issued notices
pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3),
announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP) 6E7058 by IR-4, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ, 08540; and (PP) 6F7160
by Bayer CropScience, 2.T.W. Alexander Drive, PO Box 12014, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.436 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
cyfluthrin, cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-
dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on grass,
forage at 15 parts per million (ppm) (PP 6E7058); grass, hay at 40 ppm
(PP 6E7058); beet, sugar, roots at 0.09 ppm (PP 6F7160); and beet,
sugar, dried pulp at 11 ppm (PP 6F7160). The notices referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant,
which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. Comments were received from a private citizen on
the notices of filing concerning the tolerances for grass, forage;
grass, hay; beet, sugar, roots; and beet, sugar, dried pulp. EPA's
response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the commodity and/or tolerance expressions for the proposed
petitions. The reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for residues of cyfluthrin on grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17,
forage at 12 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay at 50
ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.10 ppm; and beet, sugar, dried pulp at 1.0
ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Toxicologically, the primary target for cyfluthrin/beta-cyfluthrin
is the neuromuscular system; other non-specific effects include
decreased body weight gain, and decreased food consumption. The
observed neuromuscular effects (tremors, gait abnormities, abnormal
postural reactions, splaying of limbs and decreases in activity)
occurred mainly in oral studies in the dog and the rat. In general, the
toxicity data base does not indicate that any major differences in
toxicity exist between beta-cyfluthrin and cyfluthrin via the oral
route. Data from the inhalation toxicity study showed evidence of
clinical signs as well as hypothermia and decreased body weight gains.
In a postnatal inhalation study in mice, there were clinical signs of
neurotoxicity in the pups as well as increased spontaneous motor
activity and paresthesia (tingling, burning or prickling - also seen in
oral studies).
    In oral developmental studies no increased susceptibility was
observed in the rat or rabbit; however, increased susceptibility was
observed in inhalation developmental studies. Increased susceptibility
was also seen in oral reproduction studies and in a

developmental neurotoxicity study on beta-cyfluthrin. The data also
demonstrate increased susceptibility of rats and mice to cyfluthrin
postnatally.
    The database does not indicate that either cyfluthrin or beta-
cyfluthrin induces any endocrine disruption; and, there is no concern
of mutagenicity. EPA has classified cyfluthrin/beta-cyfluthrin as ``not
likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyfluthrin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the Cyfluthrin:
Human Health Risk Assessment for New Uses on Grasses, Alfalfa, and
Sugar Beet Seed and Revised Tolerances on Cereal Grain Commodities on
pages 54-64 at www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is
available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0857.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyfluthrin used for
human risk assessmentcan be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
Cyfluthrin: Human Health Risk Assessment for New Uses of Grasses,
Alfalfa, and Sugar Beet Seed and Revised Tolerances on Cereal Grain
Commodities on pages 23 and 24 for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-
0857.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyfluthrin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyfluthrin tolerances in (40 CFR
180.436). EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyfluthrin in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to
residue levels in food, EPA's analysis was based on tolerance level
residues, crop field trial data, Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data, percent crop treated, anticipated residues in animal
commodities, and processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996,
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA's analysis was based
on tolerance level residues, crop field trial data, PDP monitoring
data, average percent crop treated, anticipated residues in animal
commodities, and processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. A cancer dietary exposure analysis was not performed
because EPA has classified cyfluthrin as being ``not likely to cause
cancer in humans.''
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and
information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in
food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been
measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must pursuant
to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) require that data be provided 5 years after
the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect,
demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels
anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins
as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later
than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
    a. The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show
what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain
such pesticide residue.
    b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
    c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a
particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for
the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for
periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information for chronic dietary exposures as
follows:
    Almond 1%; cabbage 5%; cantaloupe 1%; field corn 5%; cotton 10%;
cucumber 1%; pecan 1%; pepper 10%; potato 25%; pumpkin 1%; sorghum 1%;
soybean 1%; squash 5%; sugarcane 1%; sunflower 1%; and watermelon 2.5%.
    EPA uses an average PCT for the acute and chronic dietary risk
analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by
combining available federal, state, and private market survey data for
that use, averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding
up to the nearest multiple of 5% except for those situations in which
the average PCT is less than one. In those cases <1% is used as the
average and <2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single
maximum value reported overall from available Federal, State, and
private market survey data on the existing use, across all years, and
rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%. In most cases, EPA uses
available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National
Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), Proprietary Market
Surveys, and the National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy
(NCFAP) for the most recent 6 years.

    The Agency used projected PCT information for chronic dietary
exposures as follows:
    Apple 69%; collard 22%; grape 15%; kale 13%; mustard greens 7%;
grass <1 %; peach 43%; pear 62%; plum 37%; spinach 39%; turnip 14%, and
wheat 2%.
    EPA estimates an upper bound of projected percent crop treated
(PPCT) for a new pesticide use by assuming that the percent crop
treated (PCT) during the pesticide's initial 5 years of use on a
specific crop will not exceed the average PCT of the dominant pesticide
(i.e., the one with the greatest PCT) on that crop over the three most
recent surveys. EPA calls this the market leader PPCT estimate. The
average market leader PCTs may be based on one or two survey years if
three are not available. Also, with limited availability of data, the
average market leader PCTs may be based on a cross-section of state
PCTs. Comparisons are only made initially among pesticides of the same
pesticide type (e.g., leading insecticides on the crop compared with
the new insecticide), or, for more refined estimates, comparisons may
be made among pesticides in a subcategory of the same pesticide type
(e.g., leading pyrethroid insecticides compared with the new pyrethroid
insecticide). The PCTs included in the average may be each for the same
pesticide or for different pesticides since the same or different
pesticides may dominate each year selected. Typically, EPA uses U.S.
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS) as the source for raw PCT data because it is publicly
available. When a specific crop is not surveyed by USDA/NASS, EPA uses
other sources including proprietary data and calculates the estimated
PCT.
    An estimated PPCT, based on the average PCT of the market leaders,
is appropriate for use in chronic dietary risk assessment. This method
of estimating PPCT for a new use of a registered pesticide or a new
pesticide produces high-end estimate that is unlikely, in most cases,
to be exceeded during the initial 5 years of actual use. Predominant
factors that bear on whether the PPCT could be exceeded may include
PCTs of similar chemistries, pests controlled by alternatives, pest
prevalence in the market and other factors. All relevant information
currently available for predominant factors has been considered for the
use of cyfluthrin on apples, cabbage, cauliflower, collards, grapes,
kale, mustard greens, pasture/rangeland, peaches, pears, peas, plums,
spinach, turnip greens, and wheat. It is unlikely that actual PCTs for
cyfluthrin will exceed the corresponding estimated PPCTs during the
next 5 years because cyfluthrin shares many pest control attributes and
constraints with other members of the pyrethroid class and will likely
replace or be used in a similar manner to currently registered
pyrethroids.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions listed above have
been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from
Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a
valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of
the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to
Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption
information for significant subpopulations is taken into account
through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of
significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
information on the regional consumption of food to which cyfluthrin may
be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for cyfluthrin in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
cyfluthrin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on survey of all the currently registered and proposed uses
of cyfluthrin, it was determined that cyfluthrin use on alfalfa and
cotton would lead to the highest surface water and ground water
estimated groundwater concentrations (EDWCs), respectively. Based on
the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of cyfluthrin are estimated to be
3.677 parts per billion (ppb) and 0.155 ppb for acute and chronic
exposure in surface water respectively. The EEC for chronic groundwater
exposure is 0.457 ppb.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 3.677 ppb was used to
access the contribution of residues in drinking water to dietary risk.
For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value
0.457 ppb was used to access the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Cyfluthrin products are registered for use at residential sites
including indoor (total release fogger, and crack and crevice spray),
and outdoor uses (spray fogger, and lawn applications). Residential
exposure for adults was assessed via the inhalation and dermal routes,
while exposure for infants and children was assessed via inhalation,
dermal, and oral (hand-to-mouth) routes. Exposure for outdoor handlers
was assessed via the Inhalation and dermal routes. Residential
applicator for indoor total release fogger was not assessed
quantitatively, because indoor inhalation exposure to a homeowner would
likely be less than inhalation exposure to homeowner that would result
from outdoor lawn treatments.
    Residential MOEs were assessed for indoor and outdoor uses for
application and post-application exposures. This is considered a
conservative assessment assuming the lawn and carpet uses happen on the
same day.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin are members of the pyrethroid
class of pesticides. Although all pyrethroids alter nerve function by
modifying the normal biochemistry and physiology of nerve membrane
sodium channels, EPA is not currently following a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity for the pyrethroids.
Although all pyrethroids interact with sodium channels, there are
multiple types of sodium channels and it is currently unknown whether
the pyrethroids have similar effects on all channels. The Agency does
not have a clear understanding of effects on key downstream neuronal
function e.g.,

nerve excitability, nor does the Agency understand how these key events
interact to produce their compound specific patterns of neurotoxicity.
There is ongoing research by EPA's Office of Research and Development
and pyrethroid registrants to evaluate the differential biochemical and
physiological actions of pyrethroids in mammals. When the results of
the research become available, the Agency will consider the findings
and make a determination of common mechanism as a basis for assessing
cumulative risk. Information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating
effects from substances found to have a common mechanism can be found
on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1.In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional (``10X'') tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits in utero exposure in
developmental oral studies; however, there was some indication of
increased susceptibility in developmental inhalation studies. A clear
NOAEL was established for the fetal effects in every case. No residual
uncertainties were identified.
    The data also showed increased susceptibility of rats and mice from
postnatal exposure to cyfluthrin. A clear NOAEL was established for the
offspring effects in every case. No residual uncertainties were
identified.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicology databases for cyfluthrin and beta-cyfluthrin
together are considered complete and adequate for selecting toxicity
endpoints for risk assessment. The toxicity profiles of both cyfluthrin
and beta-cyfluthrin can be characterized for all effects, including
potential developmental, reproductive and neurotoxic effects. Exposure
data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably
accounts for potential exposures.
    ii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or
rabbits to in utero exposure in developmental oral studies, and the
degree of concern for the effects observed in the inhalation
developmental studies is considered low since a clear NOAEL was
established for the fetal effects in every case.
    iii. The NOAEL used for short-term inhalation exposure scenarios is
protective of the effects seen in the developmental studies via the
inhalation route.
    iv. The degree of concern for the effects observed in the
reproductive studies was considered low since a clear NOAEL was
established for the offspring effects in every case.
    v. The NOAEL used to establish the cPAD for all populations is
protective of the effects seen in the young in the reproduction
studies.
    vi. A beta-cyfluthrin developmental neurotoxicity study has been
submitted for review and indicated both the LOAEL and NOAEL from this
study are higher than the LOAEL and NOAEL chosen for risk assessment
purposes.
    vii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. Although the acute and chronic food exposure assessments are
refined, EPA believes that the assessments are based on reliable data
and will not underestimate exposure/risk. The drinking water estimates
were derived from conservative screening models. The residential
exposure assessment utilizes reasonable high-end variables set out in
EPA's Occupational/Residential Exposure SOPs (Standard Operating
Procedures). The aggregate assessment is based upon reasonable worst-
case residential assumptions, and is also not likely to underestimate
exposure/risk to any subpopulation, including those comprised of
infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to cyfluthrin will occupy 53% of the aPAD for the population group
children 1 to 2 years old receiving the greatest exposure. Therefore,
EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
cyfluthrin from food and water will utilize 17% of the cPAD for the
population group children 1 to 2 years old receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of cyfluthrin is not expected. Therefore, EPA does not expect
the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Cyfluthrin is currently
registered for use(s) that could result in short-term residential
exposure and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to
aggregate chronic food and water and short-term exposures for
cyfluthrin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 320 for children 1 to
2 years old; 400 for infants < 1 year old; and 420 for the U.S.
population. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of
concern for aggregate exposure to food, water and residential uses.
Therefore, EPA does not expect short-term aggregate exposures to exceed
the Agency's level of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Cyfluthrin is currently registered for use(s) that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and
intermediate-term exposures for cyfluthrin. Using the exposure
assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA
has concluded that food, water, and residential exposures aggregated

result in aggregate MOEs of 220 for the U.S. population; 240 for
infants < 1 year old; and 230 for children 1 to 2 years old. These
aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern for
aggregate exposure to food, water and residential uses. Therefore, EPA
does not expect intermediate-term aggregate exposures to exceed the
Agency's level of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has classified
cyfluthrin as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' and concludes
that it poses no greater than a negligible cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to cyfluthrin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC)/electron-
capture detection (ECD)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    With regard to international MRLs for cyfluthrin, harmonization of
the proposed tolerances is not an issue for grass forage, grass hay,
sugar beet roots, and sugar beet dried pulp, as there are no
established or proposed Canadian, Mexican or Codex MRLs for cyfluthrin
residues on grass or sugar beet commodities.

C. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions

    1. Grasses. The available field trial data support the use of up to
four broadcast foliar applications of cyfluthrin (EC) to grasses grown
throughout the United States at a maximum single application rate of
0.044 lb active ingredient/Acre (ai/A), with a minimum RTI of 5 days,
for a maximum of 0.178 lb ai/A/season. The data also support a 0-day
preharvest interval for cutting of both forage and hay. The available
data support tolerances of 50 ppm on grass hay and 12 ppm on grass
forage.
    2. Sugar beets. The available field trial data are adequate. The
number and geographic distribution of the field trials are adequate,
and the appropriate samples were collected at normal crop maturity. The
samples were analyzed using an adequate analytical method and the
sample storage intervals are supported by the available storage
stability data. The available data support the use of cyfluthrin
(suspoemulsion) as a seed treatment for sugar beets at a rate of 0.035
lb ai/100,000 seeds. The residue data on roots support a tolerance of
0.10 ppm. For both roots and tops, most of the field trial values were
below the LOQ. As a result, EPA's statistical tolerance generator was
not used to determine tolerances.

D. Response to Comments

    Comments were received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency has received this same comment from this commenter on numerous
previous occasions and rejects it for the reasons previously stated in
the Federal Register of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1349).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of
cyfluthrin, cyano(4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 3-(2,2-
dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on grass,
forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage at 12 ppm; grass, forage,
fodder and hay, group 17, hay at 50 ppm; beet, sugar, roots at 0.10
ppm; and beet, sugar, dried pulp at 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 14, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.436 is amended by adding alphabetically commodities to
the table in paragraph (a)(1), and by removing and reserving paragraph
(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.436  Cyfluthrin: tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Beet, sugar, roots.........................................         0.10
Beet, sugar, dried pulp....................................          1.0
                                * * * * *
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage............           12
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay...............           50
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-3393 Filed 2-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67703-67704]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27511]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68169; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

November 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 26, 2012, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange intends to introduce its Automated Improvement
Mechanism (``AIM'') for FLexible EXchange Options (``FLEX Options'')
transactions beginning November 1, 2012. In conjunction with that
introduction, the Exchange proposes to amend its CFLEX fees in order to
encourage greater FLEX Options trading activity. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the CFLEX Surcharge Fee as it applies to
equity, ETF, ETN, HOLDRs and index (excluding SPX, SPXW, SPX Range
Options, OEX, XEO, VIX and Volatility Indexes, XSP and DJX (the
``Excluded Classes'')) FLEX Options transactions (the ``Fee
Elimination'').
    The Exchange also proposes to provide a $0.10-per-contract credit
for all equity, ETF, ETN, HOLDRs and index (excluding the Excluded
Classes) FLEX Options orders executed via a CFLEX AIM auction from
November 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012 (the ``CFLEX AIM Credit'').
The CFLEX AIM Credit would apply to transactions executed via AIM
because the Exchange wants to encourage the distribution of the newly-
developed CFLEX AIM technology among Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
in order to attract greater FLEX Options order flow. AIM is a
facilitation mechanism, and facilitation trades are the manner in which
most FLEX Options trades are currently executed, and so the Exchange
correspondingly wants to attract more FLEX Options facilitation trades
to the Exchange via this CFLEX AIM technology. The CFLEX AIM Credit is
limited to the Agency/Primary side of a FLEX Options AIM transaction
because this will encourage the entry of FLEX Options AIM orders, as
well as the adoption of the FLEX Options AIM technology by any party
wishing to execute a FLEX Options AIM order. The CFLEX AIM Credit would
be capped at $250 (2,500 contracts) per trade in order to limit the
Exchange's potential exposure for providing the CFLEX AIM Credit and
ensure that the provision of the CFLEX AIM Credit is economically
viable to the Exchange. In addition, $250 per trade is the current
maximum fee for the CFLEX Surcharge Fee.
    Each TPH may only receive the CFLEX AIM Credit on one order per
underlying product per day, and the CFLEX AIM Credit will be applied to
the smallest-sized order in each underlying product sent to the
Exchange by that TPH on each day. The purpose of this limitation is to
limit the Exchange's potential exposure for providing rebates and
ensure that the provision of the CFLEX AIM Credit is economically
viable to the Exchange. For purposes of the CFLEX AIM Credit, multiple
legs of a complex order will be considered separate simple orders in
order to prevent parties from being able to receive the CFLEX AIM
Credit on multiple orders in the same underlying product in the same
day. These details of the CFLEX AIM Credit will be explained in new
Footnote 28 to the Exchange Fees Schedule.
    The purpose of this is to encourage greater FLEX Options trading
via the newly-introduced AIM (which encourages facilitation) and the
distribution of the FLEX Options AIM technology among the Exchange's
TPHs. The proposed changes are to take effect on November 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\3\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\4\ which provides that
Exchange rules may provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities. The Fee Elimination is reasonable
because it will allow market participants who are currently engaging in
FLEX Options trades in equity, ETF, ETN, HOLDRs and index options
(excluding the Excluded Classes) to avoid having to pay the CFLEX
Surcharge Fee in the future. Eliminating the CFLEX Surcharge Fee for
equity, ETF, ETN, HOLDRs and most index options while not eliminating
the CFLEX Surcharge Fee for the Excluded Classes is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange expended significant
resources developing the products listed in the Excluded Classes and
must receive fees in order to recoup such expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CFLEX AIM Credit is reasonable because it will allow market
participants who engage in FLEX Options trades in equity, ETF, ETN,
HOLDRs and index options (excluding the Excluded Classes) to receive a
rebate for such transactions. Excluding the

Excluded Classes from the CFLEX AIM Credit is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange expended significant
resources developing the products listed in the Excluded Classes and
must receive fees in order to recoup such expenditures. Limiting the
CFLEX AIM Credit to FLEX Options AIM transactions is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange expended considerable
resources to develop the new FLEX Options AIM technology and therefore
desires to encourage the adoption of such technology. Further, AIM is a
facilitation mechanism and greater facilitation of FLEX Options trading
will encourage greater trading of FLEX Options. Limiting the CFLEX AIM
Credit to the Agency/Primary side of FLEX Options AIM transactions is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Agency/Primary
side of an AIM transaction is the side on which an order is entered.
Providing the CFLEX AIM Credit for the Primary side of FLEX Options AIM
orders will encourage the entry of more FLEX Options orders, which will
benefit parties wishing to take the Contra side of FLEX Options AIM
orders by providing them with more FLEX Options AIM orders on which to
take the Contra side. Capping the CFLEX AIM Credit at $250 per
transaction and limiting the CFLEX AIM Credit to one order per
underlying product per TPH (per day and only the smallest order from
that TPH) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such
limitations are necessary to ensure the financial viability of the
CFLEX AIM Credit, and without such limitations the Exchange would not
be able to offer the CFLEX AIM Credit at all. Further, these
limitations will apply to all market participants equally.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \5\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \6\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR [sic] 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-105. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-105, and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27511 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP) (Renewal)

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants were proposed on February 4, 1980, and promulgated on November 12, 1980.  These standards apply to each ammonium sulfate dryer within an ammonium sulfate manufacturing plant in the caprolactam by-product, synthetic, and coke oven by-products sectors of the ammonium sulfate manufacturing industry for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after the date of the proposal.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following

one-time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; and the notification of the date of the initial performance test.  Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility.  These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Recordkeeping requirements specific to the ammonium sulfate industry provides information on the amount of ammonium sulfate processed and the operation of the emission control device.  Owners or operators of affected facilities are required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow monitoring device which can be used to determine the mass-flow of ammonium sulfate feed material to the process, and which has an accuracy of ( 5 percent across its operating range.  However, if the plant uses weight scales of the same accuracy to directly measure production rates of ammonium sulfate, the use of flow monitoring devices is not required.  Owners or operators of all affected facilities will install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device which continuously measures and permanently records the total pressure drop across the emission control system.

Therefore, the recordkeeping requirements for ammonium sulfate plants consist of the occurrence and duration of all startups and malfunctions as described, the initial performance test results, amount of ammonium sulfate feed material, and the pressure drop across the emission control system.  Records of startups, shutdowns and malfunctions will be noted as they occur.  Records of the performance test should include information necessary to determine the conditions of the performance test, and performance test measurements (including pressure drop across the emission control system) and results.  The Continuous Monitoring System (CMS) will record pressure drop across the scrubbers continuously and automatically.

The reporting requirements for this industry include the initial notifications listed and the initial performance test results.  All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional Office.  Notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, and the standard is being met.  Performance test records are needed as these are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described are required to adhere to reporting requirements specific to this rule, e.g., provide information on the operation of emissions control devices.  Semiannual excess emissions and monitoring systems reports are required to be submitted by the respondents.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  These records and reports are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Based on the pre-existing number of applicable sources, approximately two sources are currently subject to the regulations.  Due to the static nature of the industry, it is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the standard over the next three years.  This information is based on discussions with EPA personnel knowledgeable about the ammonium sulfate industry.  The industry is dominated by facilities that have been operating since prior to the proposed date of the rule (February 4, 1980), and there has been a long-term static or declining market for the product both domestically and globally.  The average annual cost to industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is estimated to

be $15,808.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).

Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate emissions from the ammonium sulfate manufacturing industry causes or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart PP.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The control of emissions of particulate from ammonium sulfate facilities requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.  Emissions of particulate from ammonium sulfate facilities are the result of the operation of the affected facilities.  The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of particulate emissions using control technology and leak detection and repair procedures.  The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and leaks are being detected and repaired, and the regulations are

being met.

Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency’s records of a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  The information generated by the (monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting) requirement described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities which are affected by NSPS continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation.  Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR Part 60,

subpart PP.

3(a)  Nonduplication

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

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652).  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

For this information collection, the previous ICR renewal was used to obtain burden estimates since this ICR renewal was processed under the “renew without change” option.  Per this guidance, all data and assumptions from the previous ICR renewal were used as the basis for estimating the hourly and cost burdens associated with this renewal.

The most recent ICR renewal used several different resources to obtain the most recent data available for ammonium sulfate manufacturing plants.  We referenced the most recent ICR and the preparer of the active ICR.  We also accessed the most recent data (October 30, 2003) available on the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) database as maintained by the Office of Compliance.  We reviewed information available from the Office of Compliance Sector Notebook “Profile of the Inorganic Chemical Industry,” the United States Census Bureau via the Internet, and other web sites covering ammonium sulfate manufacturing.  We consulted with EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division.  In addition, we contacted the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA), Kay Snopek,<PHONE_NUMBER>, American Chemical Society, Hank Whalen, (202) 872-8724, Costal Chemical, Ms. Barbara Cabot,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Agrium, Mr. Robert Williams,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FCEP), Ms. Cindy Phillips,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and BP Chemicals, Incorporated, Mr. Kevin Sprague,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

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

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR Part 1320, Section 1320.5.

3(f)  Confidentiality

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

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are ammonium sulfate manufacturing facilities.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the respondents affected by the standards is 2873 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325311 for ammonium sulfate manufacturing facilities.

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

All data in this ICR that is recorded and/or reported is required by New Source Performance Standards, (NSPS) for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60,

subpart PP).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports	Standard Citation by Section

Notification of construction or modification	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of initial startup	60.7(a)(3)

Notification of initial performance test	60.8(d)

Periodic Reports	Standard Citation by Section

Semiannual report	60.7(c)

A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Initial performance test results	60.8(a)

Startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions	60.8(c)

Control device operating parameters (continuous)	60.423

Records should be retained for two years	60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e.g., a pressure drop and volumetric flow rate.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.  In addition, some Regulatory Agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden.  However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory Agencies.  It is estimated that approximately 10% of the respondents use electronic reporting.

(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate control devices for PM.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 9 and 5, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA’s Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.  The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for

two years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

Currently the number of employees at a typical ammonium sulfate plant exceeds the criterion for small business.  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

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

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 246 (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $64.13 per hour.  This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, “Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group.”  The rate is from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The only types of industry cost associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device

(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent

(C)

Number of New Respondents

(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

 (B X C)

(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent

(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M

(G)

Total O&M

(E X F)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are zero.  This is the total of column D in the above table.

The devices used to record operating parameters must be installed and maintained by the respondents in order to efficiently operate the processing plant.  Therefore, the total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are zero.  This is the total of column G.

The total respondent costs have been calculated as the addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs.  The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be zero.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $1,264 (rounded).  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS-12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $39.49.  This rate is from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2003 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in

Table 2: NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR 60, subpart PP).

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately four existing sources currently subject to the standard.  It is estimated that no additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years.

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

Number of Respondents

Respondents That Submit Reports

Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

	Year

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Existing Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents

(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1

0

2

0

0

2

2

0

2

0

0

2

3

0

2

0

0

2

Average

0

2

0

0

2

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is two.  The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Number of New Respondents

(B)

Number of Reports for New Respondents

(C)

Number of Existing Respondents

(D)

Number of Reports for Existing Respondents

(F)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports

(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(AxB)+(CxD)+F

0

0

2

2

0

4

The number of Total Annual Responses is 4.   The total annual labor costs are $15,808 (rounded).  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart PP).

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are zero.  These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance

(O&M) Costs.

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached in Tables 1 and 2.  The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 61.5 hours per response.

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

There is no change in burden from the most recently approved ICR.  This ICR renewal was approved under the “renew without change” option and reflects no increase in the number of new or modified sources.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 61.5 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412. An electronic version of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov/ which may be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified in this document.  The documents are also available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is (202) 566-1514.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0412 and OMB Control Number 2060-0032 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting

this information.

TABLE 1: Annual Industry Burden - NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart PP)

	Occurrences/

Hours/

	Hours per

respondent/

Respondent/

Respondents

Hours

Cost/

	Occurrence

year

year

per year

per year

year a

Reporting/Recordkeeping 	(A)

(B)

(C=A x B)

(D)

(E = C x D)

 (F=E x $64.13)

	1. APPLICATIONS

	Not Applicable

2. SURVEY AND STUDIES

	Not Applicable

3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

	New Sources b

	A. Read Instructions	1

1

1

0

0

0

B. Required Activities

	New Sources b

	Initial performance test c

	Ref Method 9 tests e	29.7

4

118.8

0

0

0

Ref Method 5 e	4

1

4

0

0

0

Repeat performance test d	4

0.2

0.8

0

0

0

Existing sources

	Monitoring of operations and emissions

	Included in 3F

C. Create Information

	Included in 3B

D. Gather Existing Information

	Included in 3E

E. Write Report

	New Sources

	Notification of construction/reconstruction	2

1

2

0

0

0

	Notification of actual startup	2

1

2

0

0

0

Notification of initial performance test	2

1

2

0

0

0

Notification of demonstration of CMS	2

1

2

0

0

0

Report of initial performance test

	Included in 3B

Existing Sources

	Notification of operational change 	2

1

2

0

0

0

Semiannual reports	16

2

32

2

64

$4,104.32

4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

	A. Read Instructions

	Included in 3A

B. Plan Activities

	Included in 3B

C. Implement Activities

	Included in 3B

D. Develop Record System

	Not Applicable

E. Time to Enter Information

     Records of operating parameters e	0.25

365

91.25

2

182.5

$11,703.73

F. Audits

	Not Applicable

	246.5

$15,808.05

	TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN (rounded)

	246

$15,808

Assumptions:

a. Assume a technical labor rate of $64.13 from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2003, Table 2: Employment Costs of Civilian

Workers by Occupational and Industry Group. The rates are from column 1: Total compensation. The wage rate obtained from the table has been increased by 110% to

account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

	b. Assume that there will be no new sources (respondents) over the 3 years period of this ICR.

c. As specified in the general provisions each performance test shall consist of three separate runs using the applicable test method. Sources are required to use Method 9

published in the 11 Edition of the Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists dated 1970. As specified in the general provisions,

each performance test shall consist of three separate runs using the applicable test method. Each run shall be conducted for the time and under the conditions specific

in the applicable rule. The particulate matter concentration, and volumetric flow rate of the effluent gas shall be determined by Method 5 which requires a sampling time and

	a sample volume for each run of at least 60 minutes and 1.50 dscm (53 dscf).

d. Assume 20 percent of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure.

	e. Sources are required to maintain a daily record of operating parameters. Assume records will be recorded 365 days per year.

TABLE 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart PP)

 EPA hrs/

Occurrences

EPA hr/

 Plants/

 EPA

 occurrences

 plant/year

 plant/year

year

hrs/year

(A)

(B)

(C=AxB)

(D)

(E=CxD)

Burden Items

Required Activities

New Plant a

Initial performance tests b

24

1

24

0

0

Repeat performance tests c

24

0.2

4.8

0

0

Report Review

New Plant

Notification of construction

2

1

2

0

0

Notification of initial startup

0.5

1

0.5

0

0

Notification of actual startup

0.5

1

0.5

0

0

Notification of initial test

0.5

1.2

0.6

0

0

Review test results

8

1.2

9.6

0

0

Notification of demonstration of CMS

0.5

1

0.5

0

0

Existing Plants

Semiannual reports

8

2

16

2

32

TOTAL ANNUAL HOUR

32

Travel expenses d

(1 person x 0 plant/year x 3 days/plant x $75 per diem) + ($350 round trip/plant x 0 plant/year) = $0/year

	Salary e

(1 person x 32 hrs/year x $39.49/hrs ) = $1,263.68

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN = $1,264 (rounded)

Assumptions:

a.  Assume that there will be no new sources (respondents) over the 3 years period of this information collection request (ICR).

	b.  Assume EPA personnel attend all initial performance tests.

c.  Assume 20 percent of initial performance tests are repeated due to failure.

	d.  There will be no travel expenses associated with this ICR since we have assumed that no new sources will become subject to this rule over the 3 year period of this ICR.

e.  The cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS-12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $39.49.

 This rate is from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) A2003 General Schedule@ which excludes locality rates of pay.

 PAGE  15


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74546-74547]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. FRA 2012-0006-N-17]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
ICRs describes the nature of the information collection and their
expected burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on September 24, 2012 (77 FR 58907).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5,

1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On September 24, 2012, FRA published a 60-day
notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs for which the
agency was seeking OMB approval. 77 FR 58907. FRA received no comments
in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve a proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden, and are being
submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: State Safety Participation Regulations and Remedial Actions.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0509.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a previously approved
information collection.
    Affected Public: 49 States/566 Railroads.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR
part 212, and requires qualified state inspectors to provide various
reports to FRA for monitoring and enforcement purposes concerning state
investigative, inspection, and surveillance activities regarding
railroad compliance with Federal railroad safety laws and regulations.
Additionally, railroads are required to report to FRA actions taken to
remedy certain alleged violations of law.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.33/61/67/96/96A/109/110/111/112.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 9,058 hours.
    Title: Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0560.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a currently approved
collection.
    Affected Public: 728 railroads/340 Public Authorities.
    Abstract: Under Title 49 Part 222 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, FRA seeks to collect information from railroads and public
authorities in order to increase safety at highway-rail grade crossings
nationwide by requiring that locomotive horns be sounded when trains
approach and pass through these crossings or by ensuring that a safety
level at least equivalent to that provided by blowing locomotive horns
exists for corridors in which horns are silenced. FRA reviews
applications by public authorities intending to establish new or, in
some cases, continue pre-rule quiet zones to ensure the necessary level
of safety is achieved.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 9,581 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding this information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent electronically
via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at
the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2012.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-30187 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29470]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13668]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0209; FRL-9964-31-Region 4]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Equivalency by Permit Provisions; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Plating and Polishing
Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2016, pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC) requested approval to implement and enforce State permit terms
and conditions that substitute for the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) from Plating and Polishing Operations
with respect to the operation of the Ellison Surface Technologies, Inc.
facility in Morgan County, Tennessee (Ellison). The Environmental
Protection Agency is proposing to approve this request, and thus,
proposing to grant TDEC the authority to implement and enforce
alternative requirements in the form of title V permit terms and
conditions after the EPA has approved the State's alternative
requirements.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0209 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Copies of all comments should also be sent to the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue,
Floor 15, Nashville, Tennessee, 37243-1102. Copies of electronic
comments should be sent to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Page, South Air Enforcement and
Toxics Section, Air Enforcement Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Page can be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this issue of
the Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's program revision
as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule and incorporated herein by reference. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all adverse comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this
time.

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-13668 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P