UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

	Date:	05/12/08

	Subject:	Ethoprop.  Petition for Registration of Uses on Mint and Hops.
 Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data.

PC Code:  041101	DP Barcode:   352231 and 352233

Decision No.: 382076, 299884	Registration No.: 264-458, 264-457, and
264-469

Petition No.: 5E4491 and 7E7247	Regulatory Action: New
Registration/Tolerance

Risk Assessment Type: N/A	Case No.: N/A

TXR No.: N/A	CAS No.: 13194-48-4

MRID No.: 47194001, 43588801, 43588802	40 CFR:  180.262

	From:	Felecia Fort, Senior Chemist

		Christine L. Olinger, Senior Chemist

		Reregistration Branch I

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

	Through:	Toiya Goodlow, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch I

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

		Michael S. Metzger, Chief

		Reregistration Branch I

		Health Effects Division (7509P)

	To:	Susan Stanton

		Risk Integration, Minor Use & Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

This document was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac
Corporation (1910 Sedwick Road, Building 100, Suite B, Durham NC 27713;
submitted 12/03/2007).  The document has been reviewed by the Health
Effects Division (HED) and revised to reflect current Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) policies.

Executive Summary

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop [S,S-dipropyl O-ethyl phosphorodithioate]
is an organophosphate insecticide/nematicide registered for use on a
variety of crops for the control of soil pests.  Ethoprop is
manufactured by Bayer CropScience under the trade name MOCAP® and is
formulated as either an emulsifiable concentrate (EC) or a granule (G).

In the current petitions, Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) is
proposing the use of ethoprop as a 6 lb/gal EC formulation (EPA Reg. No.
264-458) on hops and mint and as a 15% G formulation (EPA Reg. No.
264-457) on mint.  The proposed use on hops is for a single broadcast or
banded soil application at up to 3.0 lb ai/A.  Applications to new hop
plantings can be made pre-plant or preemergence, and applications to
established hop yards can be made either early in the season, prior to
stringing vines, or after vine harvest.  The proposed preharvest
interval (PHI) is 90 days for hops.  The proposed use on mint is for a
single broadcast soil application at up to 6.0 lb ai/A, either
preplanting to new fields or after the final harvest of the season to
established mint fields.  The proposed PHI is 225 days for mint.  For
both hops and mint, only ground equipment is allowed for application,
and ethoprop must be incorporated into soil following application.  In
conjunction with these uses, IR-4 is proposing the following permanent
tolerances for ethoprop:

Hop, dried cones	0.02 ppm

Mint, hay	0.02 ppm

Permanent tolerances are established for residues of ethoprop per se
in/on a variety of plant commodities at 0.02 ppm.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The qualitative nature of
the residue in plants is adequately understood based on cabbage, corn,
and potato metabolism studies.  HED concluded that for acute and chronic
non-cancer dietary risk, the residues of concern in crops are parent and
Metabolites II and III (S-ME and O-ME); for cancer dietary risk, the
residues of concern are parent and Metabolites II through IV (S-ME, O-ME
and M-1).

The qualitative nature of the residue in livestock is adequately
understood based upon acceptable ruminant and poultry metabolism
studies.  Residues of potential concern detected were Metabolites III
and/or IV, which together accounted for ≤2% of the total radioactive
residues in liver of hens and goats.  As the proposed uses on hops and
mint do not include any regulated livestock feedstuffs, issues
pertaining to livestock metabolism, analytical methods and storage
stability data for animal commodities, and residues in livestock
commodities are not relevant to the current petitions.

Adequate analytical methodology is available for enforcing tolerances of
ethoprop as currently defined.  Two Gas Chromatography (GC)/sulfur
microcoulometric detection methods are available in PAM, Vol. II (Method
I and A), which both involve solvent extraction and clean-up by sweep
co-distillation.  The reported limit of quantitation (LOQ) for most
commodities is 0.01 ppm for these methods.  Another GC/flame photometric
detection (FPD) method has also been proposed for determining residues
of ethoprop and Metabolite IV in plant commodities.  For this method,
residues are extracted with methanol and cleaned up using cation
exchange resin and nuchar/attaclay, and residues of Metabolite IV are
methylated with diazomethane.  Residues are then partitioned into
methylene chloride, further cleaned up using gel permeation and/or
silica gel chromatography, and determined using GC/FPD in the phosphorus
mode.  The LOQ is 0.01 ppm each for ethoprop and Metabolite IV in plant
commodities. This method has been adequately validated by an independent
laboratory, but has never undergone a petition method validation by the
Agency.

In the mint field trials and processing study, residues of ethoprop and
Metabolite IV were determined using a version of the above proposed
GC/FPD enforcement method.  The method was adequately validated in
conjunction with the analysis of field trial and processing study
samples, and the validated LOQ for residues of ethoprop and Metabolite
IV was 0.01 ppm in mint commodities.

In the hop field trials, residues of ethoprop and Metabolites II, III
and IV were determined using a GC/FPD method that was derived from the
proposed GC/FPD enforcement method.  For this method, residues were
extracted with methanol, cleaned up using SCX and Nexus solid-phase
extraction (SPE) cartridges, and partitioned into ethyl acetate.
Residues of Metabolite IV were ethylated using diazoethane, and all
residues then were cleaned up by NH2 SPE and determined by GC/FPD in the
phosphorous mode.  The validated LOQ for ethoprop and each metabolite
was 0.02 ppm in dried hops.  This method was adequately validated in
conjunction with the analysis of hops field trial samples.

Adequate storage stability data are available to support the mint and
hop field trials.  The data indicate that ethoprop and Metabolite IV are
stable under the conditions and durations of sample storage in the mint
field trials and processing study.  The data also indicate that ethoprop
and Metabolites II and III are stable under the conditions and durations
of sample storage in the hops field trials; however, Metabolite IV was
shown to degrade in dried hops stored at -20ºC.  Therefore, the residue
data on Metabolite IV in hops were corrected to account for declines of
0.15%/day during storage.

The submitted hops and mint field trial data are adequate and support
the proposed use patterns.  An adequate number of tests were conducted
on each crop in the appropriate geographical regions.  Samples were
analyzed for residues of concern using adequate data collection methods,
and the sample storage conditions and intervals are supported by the
available storage stability data.  Residues of ethoprop and Metabolite
IV (determined as methylated derivative) were determined in the mint
field trials and residues of ethoprop and Metabolites II, III and IV
(ethylated derivative) were determined in the hop field trials.

As quantifiable residues of ethoprop were detected (0.021 ppm) in mature
dried hops following soil applications at ~10x the proposed use rate,
the use on hops cannot be considered a non-food use.  However, because
ethoprop residues were just at or below the LOQ (0.02 ppm) following a
~10x application, the available field trial data will still support the
proposed 1x use rate, as ethoprop residues are unlikely to exceed the
LOQ in samples harvested at the proposed 90-day PHI.  Following
applications at 10x, residues of Metabolites II and III were each <0.02
ppm in/on dried hop cones, and residues of Metabolite IV (corrected for
storage declines) were <0.054-0.086 ppm.

oil after the final harvest of the season, (ii) the application to
harvest interval is relatively long (≥225 days); and (iii) residues of
ethoprop in mint resulting from use of the EC were <LOQ at up to 10x the
proposed rate (see CHEMSAC meeting minutes of 1/16/08).

The submitted mint processing study is adequate and indicates the
ethoprop residues may concentrate in mint oil by ~4x.  However, ethoprop
residues were <LOQ (<0.01 ppm) in/on mint tops (RAC) from all tests at
the 1x or 10x application rate.  When average ethoprop residues in oil
(0.038 ppm) from the 10x application are adjusted to account for the
exaggerated use rate, residues in oil (0.004 ppm) would be below the
proposed tolerance for mint tops.  Therefore, a separate tolerance is
not required for mint oil.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Although hops are a perennial crop, and therefore,
not rotated, mint is rotated with other crops, typically on a 3-5 year
interval; therefore, rotational crop data requirements are relevant to
the petition for use on mint.  Adequate confined and limited field
rotational crop studies are available and indicate that tolerances for
rotated crops are not required provided that labels are amended to
include a 30-day plantback intervals (PBI) for leafy vegetables, a
8-month PBI for small grains, and a restriction against the planting of
any root or tuber crops following ethoprop-treated crops.  None of the
registrant’s labels currently specify any rotational crop restrictions
for ethoprop.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry
Deficiencies

No major deficiencies were noted in the subject petitions that would
preclude establishing permanent tolerances for residues of ethoprop per
se on hops and mint (peppermint and spearmint); however, label
amendments regarding rotational crop restrictions remain outstanding.
End-use labels for ethoprop must be amended to specify the recommended
PBIs for rotated crops. Tolerances should be established at 0.02 pm for
ethoprop in/on dried hop cones and tops of peppermint and spearmint.  A
human health risk assessment for ethoprop is forthcoming.

	Background

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop [S,S-dipropyl O-ethyl phosphorodithioate]
is an organophosphate  (OP) insecticide/nematicide registered for use on
bananas/plantains, beans (lima and snap), cabbage, citrus (non-bearing),
corn, cucumbers, peanuts, pineapples, potatoes, sugarcane, sweet
potatoes, and tobacco.  Ethoprop is manufactured by Bayer CropScience
under the trade name MOCAP® and is formulated as either an EC or G for
application to food/feed crops.  These products may be applied as
broadcast or banded preplant to preemergence applications and as banded
postemergence applications directed to the soil.  Use directions specify
the use of only ground equipment, except on potatoes where aerial
applications are allowed.

IR-4 previously submitted a petition requesting the use of ethoprop (EC
and G) on mint in the U.S. (PP#5E4491).  The mint petition was
originally submitted in 1995 and was reviewed by the Agency (DP#
D214091, G. Otakie, 8/14/1995), but later with the inception of FQPA was
rendered inactive pending completion of the OP cumulative risk
assessment.  Now that the cumulative risk assessment has been completed,
the petition has been reactivated.   Additionally, IR-4 has submitted a
new petition (PP#7E7247) requesting the use of ethoprop (EC) on hops in
the U.S.  In conjunction with these uses, IR-4 is proposing the
establishment of permanent tolerances for ethoprop residues on mint and
hops at 0.02 ppm.  The nomenclature and physicochemical properties of
ethoprop and its metabolites of concern are presented below in Tables 1
and 2.

Table 1.	Nomenclature of Ethoprop and its Metabolites of Concern.

Compound

Common name	Ethoprop

Company experimental name	Ethoprop

IUPAC name	O-ethyl-S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate

CAS name	O-ethyl-S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate

CAS registry number	13194-48-4

End-use product (EP)	6 lb/gal EC (MOCAP® EC Nematicide-Insecticide, EPA
Reg. No. 264-458)

15% G (MOCAP® 15% Granular Nematicide-Insecticide, EPA Reg. No.
264-457)

Compound

Common name	Metabolite II (ethoprop S-Me)

Chemical name	O-ethyl-S-methyl-S-propyl phosphorodithioate

Compound

Common name	Metabolite III (ethoprop O-Me)

Chemical name	O-ethyl-O-methyl-S-propyl phosphorodithioate

Compound

Common name	Metabolite IV (M-1)

Chemical name	O-ethyl-S-propyl phosphorodithioate

Table 2.	Physicochemical Properties of Technical Grade Ethoprop.

Parameter	Value	Reference

Boiling point	86-91ºC at 0.2 mmHg	Ethoprop Registration Standard
(10/20/87)

pH	6.65 in saturated aqueous solution at 21ºC

	Density	1.097 g/mL at 15ºC

	Water solubility	843 ppm at 21ºC

	Solvent solubility	Completely miscible in hexane, xylene, acetone, and
ethanol

	Vapor pressure	3.89 x 10-4 Torr at 24ºC

	Dissociation constant, pKa	not available

	Octanol/water partition coefficient, Log(KOW)	3.59 at 21ºC

	UV/visible absorption spectrum	not available

860.1200  Directions for Use

There are currently three end-use products of ethoprop registered to
Bayer CropScience for use in the U.S. on food/feed crops.  These EPs are
marketed under the trade name MOCAP® and include a 6 lb/gal EC (EPA
Reg. No. 264-458),  a 15% G (EPA Reg. No. 264-457), and a 20% G (EPA
Reg. No. 264-469).  IR-4 is proposing the use of the 6 lb/gal EC
formulation for an early-season broadcast or banded application to hops
for control of garden symphylan and long-horned beetle, and use of the 6
lb/gal EC and 15% G formulations for a post-harvest or preplant
broadcast soil application to mint for control of garden symphylan,
nematodes, and mint root borer.   Example use directions were provided
and are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3.  Summary of Directions for Use of Ethoprop.

Applic. Timing, Type, and

Equip. 1	Form.

[EPA Reg. No.]	Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	Max. No. Applic. per Season	Max. Seasonal Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI

(days)	Use Directions and Limitations

Hops

New plantings: Single broadcast pre-plant or preemergence soil
application to baby hops.

Established plantings:  single broadcast or banded soil application
prior to stringing vines or after harvest of vines.

Ground equipment only 	6 lb/gal EC

[264-458]	3.0	1	3.0	90	Incorporate into the top 2-4” of soil
immediately following application using mechanical means or by overhead
irrigation.

Mint

Single broadcast soil application, preplanting to new fields or after
last harvest of the season to established fields.

Ground equipment only	6 lb/gal EC

[264-458]

15% G

[264-457]	6.0	1	6.0	225	Incorporate into the top 2-4” of soil
immediately following application using mechanical means or by overhead
irrigation.

Apply in 20-30 gal/A.

1	Do not apply by air or through any type of irrigation equipment.  For
banded applications, rates per acre should be lowered to reflect actual
area treated.

Conclusions.  The label directions are adequate to allow evaluation of
the residue data relative to the proposed use.  The available hops and
mint field trial data support the proposed use directions.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Plants

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is
adequately understood based on cabbage, corn, and potato metabolism
studies.  HED concluded that for acute and chronic non-cancer dietary
risk, the residues of concern in crops are parent and Metabolites II and
III (S-ME and O-ME); for cancer dietary risk, the residues of concern
are parent and Metabolites II through IV (S-ME, O-ME and M-1).  HED has
also determined that the metabolite ethyl phosphate is not a residue of
concern.

860.1300 Nature of the Residue - Livestock

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

 together accounted for ≤2% of the total radioactive residues in liver
of hens and goats.  Based on the data from the livestock metabolism
studies, the Agency has concluded finite residues of ethoprop are
unlikely to occur in livestock commodities [40 CFR 180.6(a)(3)].

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

DP# D244335, S. Piper, 10/22/98

Enforcement methods.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Adequate analytical
methodology is available for enforcing tolerances of ethoprop as
currently defined.  Method I in the Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM),
Vol. II, is a GC/sulfur microcoulometric detection method that has
undergone a successful EPA method validation.  This method involves
solvent extraction and clean-up by sweep co-distillation.  Residues of
ethoprop are determined by GC using a sulfur microcoulometric detector.
PAM, Vol. II also lists Method A, which uses the same principles as
Method I, but employs different parameters for extraction and gas
chromatography.  The limit of quantitation for ethoprop in or on plant
commodities is 0.01 ppm in each method.

A newer GC/FPD method has also been proposed as an enforcement method
for determining residues of ethoprop and Metabolite IV in plant
commodities.  For this method, residues of ethoprop and Metabolite IV
are extracted with methanol, filtered, and cleaned up using cation
exchange resin and nuchar/attaclay.  Residues are concentrated and
redissolved in methanol, and Metabolite IV is methylated with
diazomethane.  Ethoprop and methylated Metabolite IV are then
partitioned into methylene chloride, concentrated, redissolved in
methylene chloride, and further cleaned up using gel permeation and/or
silica gel chromatography prior to analysis using GC/FPD in the
phosphorus mode.  The LOQ is 0.01 ppm each for ethoprop and Metabolite
IV in plant commodities. This method has been adequately validated by an
independent laboratory, but has never undergone a petition method
validation by the Agency.

Data collection methods.  In the mint field trials and processing study,
residues of ethoprop and Metabolite IV were determined using a version
of the proposed GC/FPD enforcement method for plant commodities, which
is discussed above.  The validated LOQ for residues of ethoprop and
Metabolite IV was 0.01 ppm in mint commodities.   The method was
adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of field trial and
processing study samples.

Residues of ethoprop and Metabolites II, III and IV were determined in
the hop field trials using a GC/FPD method that was derived from the
proposed GC/FPD enforcement method for lima beans.  For this method,
residues were extracted with methanol and initially cleaned up by
elution through tandem SCX and Nexus SPE cartridges.  Residues were then
concentrated, acidified and partitioned into ethyl acetate, and residues
of Metabolite IV were ethylated using diazoethane.  Residues were next
cleaned up using an NH2 SPE cartridge and then determined by GC/FPD in
the phosphorous mode, using external standards.  Residues are expressed
in terms of the individual analytes.  The validated LOQ for ethoprop and
each metabolite was 0.02 ppm in dried hops.  The above method was
adequately validated in conjunction with the analysis of hops field
trial samples.

Conclusions.  Adequate methods are available for enforcing the proposed
tolerances on hops and mint, and the GC/FPD methods used for collecting
residue data from the field trials and mint processing study are
adequate for data collection.

860.1360 Multiresidue Methods

Acceptable multiresidue method testing data were submitted for ethoprop
and these data were forwarded to the U.S. FDA for further evaluation
(DP# 177243, L. Cheng, 5/28/1992).  Ethoprop is completely recovered
using Method 303, but is poorly recovered (≤50-80%) through 303 and
very poorly recovered (<50%) through protocol 304 (PAM Vol 1).

860.1380 Storage Stability

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

Adequate   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 storage stability data are available
indicating that ethoprop per se is stable at -20ºC in cabbage, potato,
pineapple commodities, peanut commodities (except meal), and corn
commodities for up to 6 to 12 months, in sugar cane and its processed
fractions for up to 15 month, and in peanut meal for up to 3 months at
-20ºC.  At storage temperatures of -5ºC, ethoprop per se is stable for
6 to 12 months in the above commodities except for pineapple bran and
pulp, peanut hulls, and corn grain dust, in which ethoprop is stable for
<3 months.

Metabolite IV is stable for ≤3 months at -20ºC in pineapple bran,
corn grain, corn fodder, corn starch, and in peanut meal, vine, hay, and
hulls.  At storage temperatures of -5ºC, Metabolite IV is stable for up
to 12 months in cabbage, pineapple juice, peanut nutmeat, peanut crude
oil, and corn crude oil.  Metabolite IV is stable at -5ºC for ≤3
months in potatoes; pineapple fruit, bran, and pulp; peanut meal, vine,
hay, hull, and refined oil; and corn grain, forage, fodder, starch,
meal, grain dust, and refined oil.

In the Ethoprop RED, HED concluded that concurrent storage stability
studies should be conducted with any required field trials or processing
studies.

As the mint field trials and processing study were conducted prior to
issuance of the Ethoprop RED, no concurrent storage stability data were
submitted with the mint studies.  However, the available stability data
on corn forage and oil and peanut hay and oil will support the mint
field trials and processing study.

 (↓0.15%/day).  Although no 0-day analyses were conducted on the
fortified samples prior to frozen storage, to verify the fortification
levels, the submitted storage stability data on dried hop cones is
adequate for purposes of this petition.  These data are in agreement
with the demonstrated stability of ethoprop and Metabolite IV on other
plant matrices.

The storage durations and conditions of samples from the crop field
trials submitted to support these petitions are presented in Table 4.

≤-20	14.2	13.9 1

Mint tops and oil	Frozen	2.7	3-12 2

1	Supported by concurrent storage stability study.  The data indicate
that Metabolite IV should be corrected for decline during storage.

2	Supported by data on corn forage and oil and peanut hay and oil.

↓0.15% per day).  Therefore, the residue data on Metabolite IV were
corrected to account for decline during storage.

860.1400 Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops

There are no proposed uses that are relevant to this guideline topic.

860.1460 Food Handling

There are no proposed uses that are relevant to this guideline topic.

860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs

There are no livestock feedstuffs associated with the proposed uses on
mint or hops.  Therefore, data requirements pertaining to meat, milk,
poultry, and eggs are not relevant to these tolerance petitions.

860.1500 Crop Field Trials

DP# 214091, G. Otakie, 8/14/1995 (mint field trials)

47194001.der (hop field trials)

IR-4 previously submitted residue data from mint field trials, which
were reviewed by HED (DP# D218587, G. Otakie, 8/14/1995).  IR-4 has also
submitted new field trial data supporting a proposed use of ethoprop
(EC) on hops.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The results from the mint and hop
trials are discussed below and the residue data are summarized in
Table 5.

Table 5.	Summary of Residue Data from Mint and Hops Field Trials with
Ethoprop (EC).

Crop matrix	Total Applic. Rate

(lb ai/A)	PHI (days)	Analyte 1	Residue Levels (ppm) 2

n	Min.	Max.	HAFT 3	Median	Mean	Std. Dev.

Hops (proposed use = 3.0 lb ai/A total application rate, 90-day PHI)

Hop, dried cones	30.1-34.3	118-135	Ethoprop	6	<0.02	0.021	0.02	0.02	0.02
<0.001

	M-1 4, 5	6	<0.054	0.086	0.077	0.054	0.062	0.013

	O-Me	6	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	0.02	0.02	NA

	S-Me	6	<0.02	<0.02	<0.02	0.02	0.02	NA

Mint (proposed use = 6.0 lb ai/A total application rate, 255-day PHI)

Mint, tops	6.0	225-280	Ethoprop	15	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	0.01	0.01	NA

	M-1 5	15	<0.01	0.073	0.061	0.01	0.02	0.021

1	Analytes M-1, O-Me and S-Me are respectively equivalent to Metabolites
IV, III and II.

2	The LOQ is ~0.02 ppm for each analyte in hops, and 0.01 ppm for parent
and M-1 (determined as M-1-Me) in mint.  For calculation of median, mean
and standard deviation, the LOQ was used for values <LOQ.

3	HAFT = Highest average field trial result.

4	Data corrected for 63% degradation.  The original data for the two
samples with detectable residues were 0.032 ppm and 0.025 ppm.

5	Metabolite M-1 was determined as ethylated M-1(M-1-Et)_ in the hop
field trials and as methylated M-1 in the mint field trials.

Hops.   In 3 field trials conducted during 2005 in Zones 11 and 12,
ethoprop (6 lb/gal EC) was applied to hop fields as either a single
broadcast soil application at 30.1 or 34.3 lb ai/A (~10x rates, 2 tests)
or as two banded soil applications (1 test) at 14.0 and 16.6 lb
ai/A/application at a retreatment interval of 6 days, for a total of
30.6 lb ai/A (10x rate).  The 10x application rates were used in these
field trials because the petitioner was attempting to demonstrate that
the proposed use could be considered a non-food/feed use.  The
applications were made early in the growing season, prior to stringing
vines when either some foliage was present or after pruning off new
growth.  Applications were made using ground equipment at 14-50 gal/A,
and did not include the use of any spray adjuvants.  Following
application, the ethoprop was incorporated into the soil by
irrigation/rainfall.

(↓0.15%/day) in hops during frozen storage; therefore, the reported
residues of M-1 have been corrected for decline during storage.

Residues of ethoprop and its metabolites M-1, O-Me, and S-Me in/on dried
hop cones were determined using a GC/FPD method that was adequately
validated prior to and in conjunction with the analysis of the field
trial samples.  The LLMV was 0.02 ppm for each analyte and the
calculated LOQ and LOD were respectively 0.02 and 0.007 ppm for
ethoprop, 0.023 and 0.008 ppm for Metabolites M-1 (determined at
M-1-Et), 0.011 and 0.004 ppm for O-Me, and 0.026 and 0.009 ppm for S-Me.

he proposed use rate, residues of ethoprop were ≤0.021 ppm in/on 6
samples of dried hop cones harvested at 118-135 DAT, with residues >LOQ
in only one sample (0.021 ppm).  Residues of the Metabolites S-Me and
O-Me were each <0.02 ppm in/on all samples.  Residues of M-1, determined
as M-1-Et and corrected for storage declines, were <LOQ in/on 4 samples
and 0.068 and 0.086 ppm in two samples from one test.  Average residues
were calculated to be 0.02 ppm for parent, O-Me, and S-Me and 0.062 ppm
for M-1-Et.  Residue decline data were not reported for hops; however,
these data are not required as the applications were made to the soil
and the treatment to harvest interval was fairly long (>100 days).

Mint.  Five field trials were conducted on mint in Zones 5, 11 and 12
during 1993-1994.  In each field trial, ethoprop (6 lb/gal EC) was
applied to established fields of mint as a single broadcast application
at 6.0 lb ai/A (1x proposed rate) in the fall following the final
harvest.  Single control and triplicate treated samples of mint hay were
collected from the first harvest the following season, at 225-280 DAT.
Samples were stored frozen for up to 82 days, an interval supported by
available storage stability data.

Mint samples were analyzed for residues of ethoprop and Metabolite M-1
using a GC/FPD method similar to a method that has previously been
proposed for tolerance enforcement.   The method was adequately
validated in conjunction with the analysis of the field trial samples.
The validated LOQ is 0.01 ppm for both ethoprop and Metabolite M-1 in
mint.

Following a single broadcast soil application of ethoprop at 6.0 lb ai/A
(1x proposed rate) in the fall after the last harvest, residues of
ethoprop were <0.01 ppm in/on all samples of mint collected from the
first harvest in the following season (225-280 DAT).  Residues of M-1
were also <0.01 ppm in/on mint from four field trials (n=12), but were
detected at up to 0.073 ppm from one field trial in WI (HAFT residues =
0.061 ppm).

Conclusions.  The hops and mint field trial data are adequate and
support the proposed use patterns.  An adequate number of tests were
conducted on each crop in the appropriate geographical regions.  Samples
were analyzed for residues of concern using adequate data collection
methods, and the sample storage conditions and intervals are supported
by the available storage stability data.

≤0.021 ppm following a ~10x application, the available field trial
data will still support the proposed 1x application of ethoprop (EC) to
hops as ethoprop residues are unlikely to exceed the LOQ in samples
harvested at the proposed 90-day PHI.

≥225 days); and (iii) residues of ethoprop in mint resulting from use
of the EC were <LOQ at up to 10x the proposed rate (see processing study
below).

The available hop and mint field trial data will support tolerances for
residues of ethoprop per se in/on mint tops (spearmint and peppermint)
and dried hop cones at 0.02 ppm.

860.1520 Processed Food and Feed

DP# 214091, G. Otakie, 8/14/1995

In a mint processing study conducted in OR during 1993-1994, ethoprop (6
lb/gal EC) was applied to established mint at the 4-6 leaf stage as a
single broadcast application in the fall at rates of 30 or 60 lb ai/A
(5x and 10x rates).  Samples of control hay and treated hay from the 10x
plot were harvested 225 DAT.  Hay was processed into oil and spent hay
on the day of harvest using standard commercial distillation practices.
Samples were stored frozen for up to 82 days prior to analysis, an
interval supported by available storage stability data.

Samples of mint hay, oil and spent hay were analyzed for residues of
ethoprop and Metabolite M-1 using the same GC/FPD method as used in the
mint field trials.   The method was adequately validated in conjunction
with the analysis of the processing study samples.  The validated LOQ is
0.01 ppm for both ethoprop and Metabolite M-1 in mint hay, oil and spent
hay.

Following a 10x application, residues of both ethoprop and M-1 were <LOQ
(<0.01 ppm) in mint hay (RAC) and spent hay.  Residues of Metabolite M-1
were also <0.01 ppm in mint oil.  Residues of ethoprop were detected in
mint oil at a maximum of 0.044 ppm and averaged 0.038 ppm following an
application at 10x.  Assuming residues at the LOQ for mint hay, the
processing factor for ethoprop in mint oil is 4x.

Conclusions.  The mint processing study is adequate.  Average residues
of ethoprop were 0.038 ppm in mint oil processed from mint treated at a
10x rate.  Because ethoprop residues were <LOQ (<0.01 ppm) in all
samples of mint from the 1x rate and 10x rate field trials, the maximum
expected residues in oil at a 1x rate were estimated using the 10x field
trial data and adjusting for the degree of exaggeration.  Accordingly,
the maximum expected residues on mint oil would be 0.0038 ppm, which is
below the proposed 0.02 ppm tolerance for mint.  Therefore, a separate
tolerance is not required for mint oil.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 860.1650 Submittal of Analytical Reference
Standards

An analytical reference standard for ethoprop is currently available at
the EPA National Pesticide Standards Repository (correspondence with
Theresa Cole 9/18/2007).

860.1850 Confined Accumulation in Rotational Crops

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 An adequate confined rotational crop study is
available and indicates that residues of ethoprop in rotational crops
are qualitatively similar to the residues resulting from the direct
application of ethoprop to the primary crops.  Ethoprop residues of
concern were detected at >0.01 ppm in/on spinach from the 31-day
plant-back interval, radish roots and wheat straw from 31- and 123-day
PBIs, and wheat forage from 31-, 123, and 365-day PBIs.  Based upon
results of the confined rotational crop study, limited field
accumulation studies in rotational crops were required.

860.1900 Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops

Ethoprop RED, DP# D239294, J. Abbots, 3/27/1998

DP# D238977, J. Abbotts, 1/23/1998

DP# D245393, S. Piper, 10/07/1998

Rotational crop data are not relevant to the proposed use on hops, as
hops are a perennial crop.  However, mint fields are rotated with other
crops, typically on a 3-5 year interval.  None of the registrant’s
labels currently specify any rotational crop restrictions for ethoprop.

Adequate data are available from limited rotational crop field trials.
Based on the results of this study and the registrant’s response to
the Agency’s review of the limited field trials, HED has concluded
that a 30-day plantback restriction is appropriate for leafy vegetables
and an 8-month plantback restriction is for small grains.  In addition,
the registrant has indicated that the label will be amended to prohibit
rotation to any root or tuber crops following application of ethoprop.
Provided that labels are amended to include these restrictions, no
additional data or tolerances would be required for rotational crops.

860.1550 Proposed Tolerances

&

@

b

c

™

»

¼

Ï

(

?

e

~

˜

»

¼

Á

Î

Ñ

Z

[

l

n

o

ƒ

„

Ž

‘

›

œ

½

Z

[

m

n

½

Í

÷

 hŒ

 hŒ

h;

攃昀Ĵ

将

将

将

将

将

将

 hŒ

 hŒ

  hŒ

将

将

将

$

$

Ȁ䢖̀Ĵ㐄ԁᣖĈĈĈĈĈĈ혈ᴇ䀀砋ﰏ㐒稗䨜؟耧⌆

$

$

阂H㐃ԁᣖĈĈĈĈĈĈ혈ᴇ䀀砋ﰏ㐒稗䨜؟'⌆

$

$

$

阂H㐃ԁᣖĈĈĈĈĈĈ혈ᴇ䀀砋ﰏ㐒稗䨜؟'⌆

$

h

3

똆

똆

똆

$

Ff

:e Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Ethoprop RED (J. Abbotts, 3/27/98)
previously recommended that the tolerance expression for ethoprop be
revised to include residues of both parent and Metabolite IV (M-1),
expressed as parent.  However, HED has since revised it position and is
now recommending that the tolerance expression include only parent
ethoprop (DP# D277780, C. Swartz, 10/11/2001).

Based on the available field trial data, the tolerance for dried hop
cones should be set at the LOQ for the enforcement method (0.02 ppm) as
residues of ethoprop were either <LOQ (<0.02 ppm) or just above the LOQ
(0.021 ppm) in samples from the 10x rate field trials (Table 6).
Similarly, tolerances for mint (peppermint and spearmint) should be set
at the LOQ (0.02 ppm) as residues of ethoprop were <0.01 ppm in all
samples of mint hay from the 1x rate field trials.  Separate tolerances
should be established for peppermint tops and spearmint tops, rather
than on mint.  Based on the results of the mint processing study, a
separate tolerance is not required for mint oil.

There are no Canadian or Mexican MRLs for residues of ethoprop and no
Codex MRLs for residues of ethoprop on the proposed crops (see IRL
sheet).  Therefore, there are no international harmonization issues
associated with these petitions.

Table 6. 	Tolerance Summary for Ethoprop.

Commodity	Proposed Tolerance (ppm)	Recommended Tolerance (ppm)	Comments;
Correct Commodity Definition

Hop, dried cones	0.02	0.02	Adequate Residue Data are available. Hop,
cones, dried

Mint, hay	0.02	0.02	Adequate residue data are available.  Separate
tolerances should be established for spearmint, tops and peppermint,
tops

References

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D214091

Subject:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 PP#5E04491 - Ethoprop on Mint -
Evaluation of Field Trial and Processing Residue Data.

From:		G. Otakie

To:		D. Edwards, C. Anderson, and W. Hazel

Dated:		8/14/1995

MRID(s):	43588801 and 43588802

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D238977

Subject:	Ethoprop (041101), Reregistration Case No. 0106.  Registrant
Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company.  Residue Chemistry Guideline 860.1900,
Limited Rotational Crop Field Trials.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

From:		J. Abbots

To:		K. Farwell and J. Loranger

Dated:		1/23/1998

MRID(s): 	44350201

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D239294

Subject:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop (041101), Reregistration Case
No. 0106. Product and Residue Chemistry Chapters for the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED).

From:		J. Abbots

To:		K. Farwell

Dated:		3/27/1998

MRID(s):	None

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D245393

Subject:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop (041101).  Reregistration Case
No 0106.  Registrant Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company.  Registrant’s Response
to Limited Rotational Crop Field Trials.

From:		S. Piper

To:		M. Metzger

Dated:		10/07/1998

MRID(s):	None

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D244335

Subject:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop (041101).  Reregistration Case
No 0106.  Revision of the Enforcement Method for Ethoprop on Lima Bean
Pods, Vines, and Hay.

From:		S. Piper

To:		M. Metzger

Dated:		10/22/1998

MRID(s):	44495601

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 DP Number:	D277780

Subject:	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Ethoprop.  List A Reregistration Case No.
0106/Chemical ID No. 041101). Data Requirements and Tolerance
Reassessment for the IRED.

From:		C. Swartz

To:		K. Farwell and B. Gregg

Dated:		10/11/2001

MRID(s):	None

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Attachments:

International Residue Limit Status sheet

Template Version September 2005

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS

Chemical Name:

O-ethyl-S,S-dipropyl phosphorodithioate	Common Name: Ethoprop

	( Proposed tolerance

□ Reevaluated tolerance

□ Other	Date:  11/30/07

Codex Status (Maximum Residue Limits)	U. S. Tolerances

□ No Codex proposal step 6 or above

( No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested	Petition
Numbers:  5E4491, 7E7247

DP#s:  342754, 342793

Other Identifier:

Residue definition (step 8/CXL):  Ethoprophos	Reviewer/Branch:  M.
Sahafeyan/RAB1

	Residue definition:  Ethoprop

Crop (s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s) 	Tolerance (ppm)

Hop, cones, dried	0.02

Peppermint, tops	0.02

Spearmint, tops	0.02

Limits for Canada	Limits for Mexico

(  No Limits

$

  h

h

h

h

h

h

$

 h$

 h$

 h$

 h$

$

	□  No Limits for the crops requested	(  No Limits

□  No Limits for the crops requested

Residue definition:  N/A	Residue definition:  NA

Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)	Crop(s)	MRL (mg/kg)

	Notes/Special Instructions:

Page   PAGE  17  of   NUMPAGES  17

Ethoprop	Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data	Barcode:
352231, 352233


[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49678-49679]
[DOCID:fr29au07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 49 and 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0888, FRL-8461-9]
RIN 2060-AH37

Prevention of Significant Deterioration New Source Review:
Refinement of Increment Modeling Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a reopening of the public comment period
on our proposed amendments for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration New Source Review: Refinements of Increment Modeling
Procedures (June 6, 2007). The EPA is reopening the comment period that
originally ended on August 6, 2007. The reopened comment period will
close on September 28, 2007. The EPA is reopening the comment period
because of the number of requests we received in a timely manner.

DATES: Comments. Comments on the proposed rule published June 6, 2007
(72 FR 31371) must be received on or before September 28, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0888, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0888, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest, Mailcode: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of 2 copies. In addition, please mail a copy of
your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0888.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0888. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact
Jessica Montanez, Air Quality Policy Division, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number (919)
541-5509, electronic mail e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to
the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0888.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW).
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice
will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home
page located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr and on the tribal air home page at http://www.epa.gov/oar/tribal.

    Dated: August 21, 2007.
Lydia Wegman,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E7-17104 Filed 8-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38745-38746]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13855]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0660; FRL-9980-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Review of New
Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Rules for New and Existing
Chemical Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture
Review of New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Rules for New
and Existing Chemical Substances'' (EPA ICR Number 1188.13, OMB Control
Number 2070-0038) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a request that will rename and consolidate two currently
approved collections under OMB Control No. 2070-0038. Public comments
were previously requested on a new consolidated ICR identified as EPA
ICR No. 2702.01 via the Federal Register on December 27, 2021, during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below,
including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2021-0660, online using https://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats,
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support
Branch (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's dockets, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection request consolidates the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the
premanufacture review of new chemical substances and those associated
with new and existing chemical substances that are subject to
significant new use rules, which are programs administered by EPA under
section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2604).
Originally identified as a new ICR and assigned EPA ICR No. 2702.01
(OMB Control No. 2070-NEW), this request consolidates two currently
approved collections identified as EPA ICR No. 0574.18 (OMB Control No.
2070-0012) and EPA ICR No. 1188.12 (OMB Control No. 2070-0038). Based
on discussions with OMB, EPA subsequently determined that the
consolidated ICR should be submitted as a revision to the existing ICR
approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0038. The consolidation ICR is now
identified as EPA ICR No. 1188.13 and includes a change in its title.
    TSCA section 5 requires that any person who proposes to manufacture
(which includes import) a ``new chemical'' (i.e., a chemical not listed
on the TSCA section 8(b) Inventory) must provide a premanufacture
notice (PMN), a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) or an
exemption application to EPA at least 90 days prior to commencing
manufacture of that chemical and that EPA review such notice and take
action as appropriate. In addition, if EPA determines that a non-
ongoing use of a new or existing chemical substance is a significant
new use, EPA may promulgate a significant new use rule (SNUR) under
TSCA section 5 to require any person who intends to manufacture
(import) or process the chemical substance for that designated
``significant new use'' must first submit a significant new use notice
(SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days prior to commencing the manufacture or
processing of that chemical for that use, which allows EPA to review
such notice and take action as appropriate. TSCA section 5 also
requires EPA to make determinations before the conclusion of its 90-day
review of the submitted notices regarding whether the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, use and/or disposal of the new
chemical substances or the significant new use of the existing chemical
substances may present unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
EPA's determination on a chemical substance or new use will dictate how
and to what extent the chemical's manufacture, use, processing and/or
disposal may be restricted.
    Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed
or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA
section 12(b), and regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) appear
at 40 CFR

part 707 and the associated paperwork activities and burdens are
approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0030, ICR entitled ``Notification
of Chemical Exports--TSCA Section 12(b),'' identified by EPA ICR No.
0795.16.
    Form Numbers: 7710-23, 7710-25, 7710-56 and 6300-7.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical manufacturers (defined by
statute to include importers) and processors, e.g., entities identified
by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
325, Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacturers, and 324, Petroleum
Refining.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 15 U.S.C 2604. 40
CFR parts 720, 721, 723 and 725.
    Estimated number of respondents: 234 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 136,292 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $37,354,814 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: The consolidation of the currently
approved ICRs is expected to result in an overall decrease of 56,001
burden hours and $17,188,154 burden costs when compared to the total
combined burden and costs that is currently approved by OMB. Discussed
in more detail in the ICR, this decrease is an adjustment.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-13855 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


LIST OF USERS

Of Technology Tools and Methodologies Developed Under the Science and
Technology for Sustainability Multi-Year Plan and its Predecessor MYP

Environmental Technology and Verification (ETV) Program

1.  OPPT Using ETV Testing for Lead Test Kits: EPA Renovation Repair and
Painting Rule (see
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2008/April/Day-22/t8141.pdf)
requires ETV testing or approved equivalent ETV is referenced in the
Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule promulgated on March 31, 2008 that
includes a lead test kit recognition program. The recognition program
references ETV as the testing organization that will be used to evaluate
the test kits.  ETV is in the process of verifying the performance of
lead in paint test kits under an Environmental and Sustainable
Technology Evaluation (ESTE) project.

2.  Generic Verification Protocol for Baghouse Filtration Products: A
Sept 26, 2007 memo from Steve Page, Director, OAQPS, to the EPA Regional
Air Division Directors, states OAQPS will consider use of the ETV
baghouse filtration protocol in future regulations, recommends regions
consider opportunities to employ protocols in state and local regulatory
programs, and suggests use of filter media tested under the ETV
protocol. On a related note, California’s Proposed Amended Rule 1156,
Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing
Facilities, June 13, 2008 states “In lieu of annual testing, the
operator who elects to use all (ETV) verified filtration products in its
baghouses shall conduct a compliance test every five years.”

3.  Generic Verification Protocol for Diesel Exhaust Catalysts,
Particulate Filters, and Engine Modification Control Technologies for
Highway and Non-Road Use Diesel Engines The ETV Program includes three
well-accepted diesel retrofit technology protocols, which have advanced
efforts to standardize protocols across programs. The ETV protocols are
currently posted on the EPA’s Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program (VDRP)
and ETV Web sites and can be used by retrofit technology manufacturers
and others to generate data on the performance of diesel engine retrofit
technologies. Technology vendors have submitted the data generated by
ETV using these protocols to the VDRP. VDRP has used this information to
determine, at least in part, whether to post ETV-verified technologies
on the VDRP-verified technology list. Posting on the VDRP list is
expected to reduce the amount of state- or program-specific testing
needed to evaluate retrofit technologies and determine the pollutant
reductions associated with their use.

4.  States use ETV protocols in wastewater rules and guidance:  In 2008,
ETV added seven states, in addition to two documented in 2005 or prior,
as referencing ETV in their regulations or guidance.

	Florida - Florida Administrative Code 64E6.012, Applications for
Innovative System Permits and System Construction Permits, indicates
that an application for innovative system permits shall include:  (b)
Compelling evidence that the system will function properly and reliably
to meet the requirements of this chapter and Section 381.0065, F.S. Such
compelling evidence shall include one or more of the following from a
third-party testing organization approved through the NSF Environmental
Technology Verification Program.

	Idaho - The State Technical Guidance Manual (October 4, 2007) includes
references to "has successfully completed an EPA sanctioned
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test" for Extended
(Wastewater) Treatment Package Systems, as well as for nitrogen
reduction systems.

	Maryland - The BAT workgroup has adopted a protocol used by the
Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental Technology Verification
(EPA/ETV) to establish a procedure to verify the performance of nitrogen
reducing OSDS (onsite distribution systems).  Further, a review team
comprised of three engineers from MDE and one County Environmental
Health Director are reviewing the applications to ensure that each
technology has been third party evaluated to a standard at least as
stringent as the EPA/ETV's.

	Pennsylvania - The Experimental Onlot Wastewater Technology
Verification Program requires technologies accepted for performance
verification complete appropriate testing. . . following a protocol
developed by or in cooperation with ANSI and/or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (ETV).

	Virginia - State DEQ encourages innovative technology developers and
vendors to use technology templates, such as the EPA Environmental
Technology Verification Program, to serve as means for potential
customers and regulators to see consistent descriptions, application
information, and performance data on new technologies.

	Washington - Rules (On-site Sewage Systems, Chapter 246-272A WAC,
Effective July 1, 2007) written for Testing Requirements for Proprietary
Treatment Products requires (1) EPA/NSF Protocol for the Verification of
Wastewater Treatment Technologies / EPA Environmental Technology
Verification (April 2001) for systems designed to treat high-strength
sewage when septic tank effluent is anticipated to be greater than
treatment level E. (Such as at restaurants, grocery stores, mini-marts,
group homes, medical clinics, residences, etc.); and (2) Protocol for
the Verification of Residential Wastewater Treatment Technologies for
Nutrient Reduction/EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program
(November, 2000) for residential and high strength wastewater
applications.

	Oregon - The State Administrative Rules for Approval of New or
Innovative Technologies, Materials, or Designs for Onsite Systems
specifies that the department may approve new or innovative
technologies, materials, or designs for onsite systems pursuant to this
rule if it determines they will protect public health, safety, and
waters of the state as effectively as systems authorized in this
division. The department must base approval on one or more of the
following:  (D) Certification of the new material, technology, or design
for proposed uses by NSF International, EPA's Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) program, or another program providing certification
equivalent to the performance demonstration required by this rule and
approved by the department.

5.  States using ETV in drinking water regulations and guidance:
Thirty-one states responding to the 2008 Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA) survey indicated that they can allow for
reduced pilot testing of drinking water treatment systems for those
products with acceptable ETV reports.

Massachusetts regulation (Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection – Water Supply, BRP WS 27
Permits for New Technology with Third-party Approval) states that
verification reports can be used to qualify a technology for approval,
potentially with reduced pilot testing.

The State of Utah’s drinking water regulations specifically identify
the ETV Program as a source of performance verification data. (See Utah
Safe Drinking Water Act; R309535-13; June 2005.). The Utah Department of
Environmental Quality Web site also states: “A number of treatment
processes have undergone rigorous testing under the EPA's Environmental
Technology Verification Program (ETV). If a particular treatment process
is a "verified technology", it may be accepted in Utah without further
pilot plant testing.”  (See
http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov/plan_review_intro.htm for quote.)

The State of Washington's water system design manual references ETV
protocols for surface water treatment.  (See
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/dw/DesignManual/chapter12.DOC)

6. Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions from
Outdoor Wood-Fired Hydronic Heaters:  EPA OAQPS is participating in the
development of a Model Rule that will help states and local agencies
that choose to regulate emissions from outdoor wood-fired hydronic
heaters (OWHH) and a voluntary program for testing and disclosing
emission performance. The OWHH has identified ETV as "an independent,
objective and high quality source of performance information" for
assessing OWHH performance; ETV published a protocol in June 2008 for
verifying OWHH performance.  (See http://www.epa.gov/woodheaters).

Massachusetts has proposed regulation for outdoor hydronic heaters (310
CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor Hydronic Heaters) identifies ETV as a source for
emission test data (see 310 CMR 7.26(50) Outdoor Hydronic Heaters)

NESCAUM's proposed rule
(http://www.nescaum.org/topics/outdoor-hydronic-heaters) requires
testing via ETV.

7. OPP using ETV and its pesticide spray drift research to develop
pesticide risk assessment and labeling requirements.  OPP intends to use
verified drift-reduction technologies in its pesticide risk assessments
and registration decisions (Interview, J. Ellenberger, OPP, Daily
Environment Report, May 21, 2007).  The ESTE spray drift project is
covered in page 7 of the draft pesticide registration notice for
pesticide spray drift entitled " Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice
2008-X Draft: Pesticide Drift Labeling"

8. ETV reports and data were used during EPA's decision to retain
Syngenta Method AG-625 as an approved method for atrazine, subject to
certain conditions.  (See 40 CFR Part 122, 136, et al.;  Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the
Clean Water Act; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;  and
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and Sampling
Procedures; Final Rule; March 12, 2007).

9. EPA referenced nine ETV verification reports and two verification
protocols in the final drinking water LT2 rule.  (See 40 CFR Parts 9,
141, and 142; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Final Rule; January 5, 2006)
Additionally, EPA defined a set of test conditions that must be met for
an acceptable challenge test to be used for compliance with the
LT2ESWTR. These conditions provide only a framework for the challenge
test and States may develop additional testing requirements. The draft
Toolbox Guidance Manual identifies the ETV Protocol for Equipment
Verification Testing for Physical Removal of Microbiological and
Particulate Contaminants as containing sections that provide guidance
for developing and conducting a bag and cartridge filter challenge test
for LT2ESWTR.

10. TV reports and data were used to inform the development of
Continuous Instrumental Test Methods Rule.  (See, 40 CFR Part 60; Update
of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods; Final Rule; May 15, 2006 at
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2006/May/Day-15/a4196.htm).

11. The California State Lands Commission (Commission) Marine Invasive
Species Program’s (MISP) Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing
Guidelines is based on the ETV “Draft generic protocol for
verification of ballast water treatment technologies” which was
developed as a joint effort by ETV’s WQPC and the USCG.  (See
http://www.slc.ca.gov/Spec_Pub/MFD/Ballast_Water/Documents/TestingGuidel
inesFinal_101008.pdf for more information)

Others can be found in the two case study documents we produced in 2006.
 They can be found at http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600r06001pv.pdf and
http://www.epa.gov/etv/pubs/600r06082pv.pdf, respectively.

Sustainable Materials And Residuals managemenT (SMART) Decision Support
Tool (Previously referred to as the Municipal Solid Waste DST)

Sandra Cointreau

Solid Waste Management Advisor

World Bank

Brian Bahor

Covanta Projects, Inc.

Fairfield, NJ 07004

Frank Ferraro

Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.

Hampton, NH  03842

Daniel Dietch

CH2MHILL

Coral Gables, FL  33134

William Brandes and Jesse Miller

EPA, Office of Solid Waste

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20460

H. Scott Matthews

Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Public
Policy

Research Director, Green Design Institute Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Debra R. Reinhart, PhD, PE, BCEE

Interim Director NanoScience Technology Center

Interim Assistant VP for Research

University of Central Florida

Orlando, FL  32826

Jenna R. Jambeck, Ph.D.

Research Assistant Professor

Environmental Research Group

Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH  03824

Application of SMART Tool

The tool has been used to support decisions at the global, national,
regional and community levels.  Places where it has been applied in one
or multiple municipal solid waste (MSW) studies are as follows:

Communities include: Anderson County, S.C.; Atlanta, Georgia; Edmonton,
Alberta; Lucas County, Ohio; Madison, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Spokane, Washington; Tacoma,
Washington; and Wake County, N.C.; U.S. EPA’s RTP Facility

State or Regional studies include: Great River Regional Waste Authority,
Iowa; California; Delaware; Georgia; Hawaii; New York; Virgin Islands;
Washington; Wisconsin;; U.S. Navy Region Northwest; Greater Regional
Vancouver

The tool has also been used in a U.S. GHG Study for U.S. Conference of
Mayors and globally in World Bank funded study of 10 different
communities of which 8 are in economically developing countries.

Example applications of the SMART-DST include:

Estimate the environmental and cost implications of existing and new
management  programs such as expansion of curb-side recycling programs

Develop waste management plans in a more regional/integrated fashion

Quantify carbon emissions or emission reductions for GHG reduction
programs or in meeting renewable portfolio standards

Evaluate new waste management technologies such as waste conversion
technologies

Measure progress over time in meeting environmental goals

Identify which materials in MSW will obtain greater environmental
benefit from source reduction and materials recovery programs.

Waste Reduction Algorithm (WAR Algorithm)

[These are researchers who used WAR in their own research projects not
just citations.]

1)  Auburn University (Auburn, AL)

2)  Brandenburg Technical University Cottbus (Cottbus, Germany)

3)  Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing, China)

4)  Danish Technical University (Lyngsby, Denmark)

5)  ETH Institute for Chemical and Bioengineering (Zurich, Switzerland)

6)  Kuwait University (Safat, Kuwait)

7)  Memorial University of Newfoundland (St. John, Newfoundland, Canada)

8)  National University of Colombia (Caldas, Colombia)

National University of Singapore (Singapore, Singapore)

Polytechnic University of Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain)

South China University of Technology (Guangzhou, China)

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Zurich, Switzerland)

The National University of the South (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Tsinghua University (Beijing, China)

University of California Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA)

University of Illinois – Chicago (Chicago, IL)

University of Melbourne (Melbourne, Australia)

University of Nevada (Reno, NV)

University of Oldenburg (Oldenburg, Germany)

University of Paderborn (Paderborn, Germany)

University of Porto (Porto, Portugal)

University of Tennessee (Knoxville, TN)

University of Toledo (Toledo, OH)

University of Trieste (Trieste, Italy)

Xian Jiaotong University (Xian, China)

Zhongyuan Institute of Technology (Zhengzhou, China)

WAR Downloads

-  416 downloads TOTAL (since 2004)

-  92 downloads in FY09

-  Historical Distribution (59 % academia; 12 % industry; 9 %
government; 8 % other; 12 % unspecified)

Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (T.E.S.T.)

Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research (Milan, Italy)

University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NC)

TEST Downloads (software put on   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov"
www.epa.gov  during summer of 2008)

-  38 downloads in FY09

Methodology for an Incentive-based Approach to Decentralization of
Stormwater Management

Metropolitan Sewer district of Greater Cincinnati, Karen Ball

Cleveland Metroparks, John Mack

Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Linda Mayer-Mack, Kyle
Dreyfuss-Wells

USEPA Region 5, Bob Newport

Methodology for a Multidisciplinary Approach to Examining Regional
Sustainability

Adam State College, Rafe Weston

US EPA Region 2, Puerto Rico, Carl-Axel Soderberg

Life Cycle Assessment

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)

United States Postal Service

EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW)

EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxics (OPPT)

Kimberly-Clarke

Treated Wood Council

Aluminum Association

International Copper Association

American Coal Ash Association

Life Cycle Inventory Database

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

GreenBlue (a non-profit)

United Nations Environment Programme

Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI )

1)	US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED),

2)	National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Building for
Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES),

Region 9 Remediation Technology Evaluation,

US Marine Corps’ Environmental Knowledge and Assessment Tool (EKAT),

International Design Center for the Environment’s eLCie software,

Pre Consultants’ SimaPro (software for LCA),

The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability Emergency
SMART Building Product Standard,

8)	The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability, SMART 2.0
Flooring Standard,

The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability, SMART
Sustainable Textile Standard 2.0,

Draft American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D7075 -
04 – Standard Practice for Evaluating and Reporting Environmental
Performance of Biobased Products,

11)	National Science Foundation (NSF) International/American National
Standard NSF 140 – 2005 – Sustainable Carpet Assessment Draft
Standard,

Listed within the draft ASTM Standard D7075 - 04 – Standard Practice
for Evaluating and Reporting Environmental Performance of Biobased
Products.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register: October 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 55841-55842]
[DOCID:fr29oc09-78]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.

========================================================================

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0253; FRL-8975-3; EPA ICR No. 1847.05; OMB Control No.
2060-0390]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Emission Guidelines for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors Constructed on or Before September 20, 1994
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). This is a request to renew an existing approved
collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of
the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0253 to EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walt Stevenson, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail
Code D243-01, Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 919-541-
5264; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 24, 2009 (74 FR 36696), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during the
comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted
to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for the ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0253, which is available for online viewing at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov to 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. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document. Please note that EPA's policy is that
public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Emission Guidelines for Large Municipal Waste Combustors
Constructed on or before September 20, 1994 (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1847.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0390.
    ICR status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The ICR is a renewal of current data collection and
reporting requirements for large municipal waste combustors (MWC)s
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb emission guidelines. The subpart
Cb guidelines are maximum achievable control technology (MACT) based
standards that were adopted in 1995 and were fully implemented by year
2000. The data collected by the ICR are intended to monitor the
compliance status of large MWCs subject to these MACT standards. The
data collection is a mandatory requirement (Clean Air Act section
114(a)(1)).
    The emission guidelines require initial notifications, performance
tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators of large MWCs also are
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. Owners or operators of large MWCs must maintain all files
for least five years.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,725
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 which have subsequently changed; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Large Municipal Waste Combustors.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 81.
    Frequency of Response: Annual, semiannual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 394,954.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $50,588,150, which includes labor
costs

of $49,032,950 and operation and maintenance costs of $1,555,200.
    Changes in Estimates: There is an increase of 356,537 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. The original ICR included only the burden for
large MWCs subject to the Federal 111(d) plan for large MWCs. This ICR
renewal includes the additional burden of large MWCs subject to
approved State Section 111(d) plans and for State agencies implementing
the Section 111(d) plans.

    Dated: October 23, 2009.
Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-26082 Filed 10-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61127-61128]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport at Fort Worth, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport under the provisions
of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation

Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ed Agnew, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to the Mr. Bill Welstead, Aviation Director, at the
following address: 4201 N. Main St., Suite 200, Fort Worth, TX 76106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, Telephone:
(817) 222-5663, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Fort Worth Spinks Airport under the
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Fort Worth requests the release of 0.64 acres of
property within the Fort Worth Spinks Airport. The land was acquired
using City and FAA funds from 1983 to 1987. The property to be released
will be sold to the City of Burleson and revenues shall be used for the
operation and maintenance at the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Fort Worth Spinks Airport, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 1, 2014.
Edward N. Agnew,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-24145 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P