39396 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(1) The employer name and 

identification number; 

(2) The reason for the request; and 

(3) An explanation, accompanied by 

any necessary documentation to support 

its explanation, of why VETS’ decision 

was incorrect. 

(c) VETS may request from the 

employer filing such request any 

additional evidence or explanation it 

finds necessary for reconsideration. 

(d) Within thirty business days after 

the later of the receipt of the request or 

the receipt of any additional evidence or 

explanation requested, VETS will issue 

a determination about whether to grant 

or deny the request. 

(e) No additional Department of Labor 

review is available. 

Subpart G—Record Retention 

§ 1011.600 What are the record retention 

requirements for the HIRE Vets Medallion 

Award? 

Applicants must retain a record of all 

information used to support an 

application for the HIRE Vets Medallion 

Award for two years from the date of 

application. 

J.S. Shellenberger, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17249 Filed 8–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–79–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0446; FRL–9966–04– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Colorado; Revisions to Regulation 

Number 3 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of 

a portion of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Colorado on February 25, 2015. 

The revisions are to Colorado Air 

Quality Control Commission 

(Commission) Regulation Number 3, 

Parts A, B and D. The amendments the 

EPA is proposing to act on include: 

Revisions to provisions for permitting 

emissions for particulate matter less 

than 2.5 micrograms (PM2.5) in Part D, 

modifications to the provisions for filing 

revised Air Pollution Emission Notices 

(APEN) in Part A and updates to public 

notice publication requirements in Part 

B. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 18, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0493 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6227, 

leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register volume, date and page 

number); 

• Follow directions and organize your 

comments; 

• 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; and, 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

Revisions to PM2.5 Significant Impact 

Level (SIL) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC) Provisions 

Colorado’s SIP submittal revises the 

SIL and SMC provisions for PM2.5 in the 

State’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. 

On January 22, 2013, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated the SILs for 

PM2.5 and allowed the EPA to 

reconsider the provisions for SMCs. 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458 (D.C. 

Cir. 2013). On December 9, 2013, the 

EPA issued a final rule that removes the 

PM2.5 SIL from EPA’s PSD regulations 

and revised the threshold for SMCs (78 

FR 73698). The EPA set the PM2.5 SMC 

concentration at zero micrograms per 

cubic meter instead of removing PM2.5

entirely from the SMC provisions 

because a zero micrograms per cubic 

meter threshold means there is no air 

quality impact below which a reviewing 

authority has the discretion to exempt a 

source from the PM2.5 monitoring 

requirements, but that monitoring is still 

required. As a result of this court 

decision and the EPA’s rulemaking, 

Colorado removed the SILs for PM2.5

from Part D, Section V.A.2.c set the 

SMC monitoring concentration to zero 

in Part D, Section VI.B.3.a(iii). 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39397 

1For a detailed discussion of the three programs, 

please see (for example) 76 FR 38748 (July 1, 2011). 

2Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation, to Regional Administrators, entitled 

‘‘Minor New Source Review Program Public Notice 

Requirements under 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3) (Apr. 17, 

2012), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2015–07/documents/pubnot.pdf. 

Revisions to APEN Reporting 

Colorado’s regulations in Part A, 

Section II.A. require: 

[N]o person shall allow emissions of air 

pollutants from, or construction, 

modification or alteration of, any facility, 

process, or activity which constitutes a 

stationary source, except residential 

structures, from which air pollutants are, or 

are to be, emitted unless and until an Air 

Pollution Emission Notice and the associated 

Air Pollution Emission Notice fee has been 

filed with the Division with respect to such 

emission. 

Colorado has revised its APEN 

reporting requirements to clarify when a 

revised APEN is required due to a 

significant change in annual actual 

emissions. The revision would clarify 

that the thresholds for determining 

significant changes are based on 

individual emission units, not facilitywide, actual emissions on a pollutantby-pollutant basis. For example, an 

APEN reporting 150 tons per year (tpy) 

of carbon monoxide (CO) and 10 tpy of 

PM2.5 would need to update CO 

emissions using the ‘‘one hundred tpy 

or more’’ threshold in Part A, Section 

II.C.2.b.(iii), and update PM2.5 emissions 

using the ‘‘less than one hundred tpy’’ 

threshold in Part A, Section II.C.2.b.(i). 

Without this proposed clarification 

(actual emissions on a pollutant-bypollutant basis) a significant change was 

based on the source’s aggregate annual 

actual emissions, which required 

sources to file revised APENs more 

often. 

Colorado has also revised Part A, 

Section II.C.b(i)–(iii), Section II.C.4.a. 

and b. to clarify that APENs filed solely 

to update an expired APEN, change the 

owner or operator, or report a significant 

change in emissions need only report 

actual annual emissions (which is the 

equivalent of controlled emissions if the 

source utilizes emission control 

equipment). APENs filed to update 

control equipment or modify a permit 

limitation would continue to report both 

uncontrolled actual and controlled 

actual emissions. This revision 

simplifies and streamlines the 

requirements for filing revised APENs, 

because the source’s actual annual 

emissions are the relevant information 

for inventory and fee purposes when 

reporting past years’ emissions or 

reporting significant changes in annual 

actual emissions. 

Revisions to Public Notice Requirements 

Colorado has revised its provisions for 

public notice of a minor source permit 

application to update the publication 

requirements in Part B, Section III.C.4. 

Regulation 3 in the SIP requires the 

State to publish public notice of certain 

proposed minor source construction 

permit applications, including sources 

that apply for a permit to limit the 

potential to emit criteria pollutants, in 

a newspaper of general distribution in 

the area where the proposed project will 

be located or by other such method 

reasonably designed to ensure effective 

public notice. Recently, Colorado has 

found that some areas where 

construction permitting projects require 

public notice are proposed no longer 

have newspapers of general circulation. 

Therefore, in order to provide effective 

public notice, Colorado has revised its 

minor source public notice publication 

requirements to include other means 

authorized by state statute and federal 

regulation that are designed to provide 

public notice of the applicable 

permitting action. Further, by utilizing 

other means of public notice such as the 

State Web site, Colorado will provide 

broader notice for a longer timeframe 

than a one-day publication in a 

newspaper. 

III. What are the changes that EPA is 

proposing to approve? 

Under CAA section 110(l), EPA 

cannot approve a SIP revision that 

interferes with any requirement 

concerning attainment, reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The February 

25, 2015 revisions to Regulation 3 Part 

D, Section VI.A.2.c and VI.B.3.a.(iii) of 

the Colorado SIP would not interfere 

with the applicable requirements of the 

Act. The revisions to the PSD program 

in Part D, Regulation 3 comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 as 

revised by the EPA in response to the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision 

regarding PM2.5 SILs and SMCs. See 78 

FR 73698. This proposal is limited to 

the revisions pertaining to PM2.5; we are 

not proposing to re-approve any existing 

provisions in the Colorado SIP regarding 

source impact analysis and ambient 

monitoring. As the revisions removing 

PM2.5 SILs and SMCs are in accordance 

with the EPA’s 2013 removal of PM2.5

SILs and SMCs from 40 CFR 51.166 and 

the revisions strengthen the SIP, we are 

proposing to approve the revisions. We 

are also proposing to approve the 

conforming change to the introductory 

statement in VI.A.2., which includes the 

deletion of the phrase at the end of the 

sentence (‘‘, as clarified for any relevant 

air pollutant in Section VI.A.2.c.:’’). The 

revisions to Part A, Section II.C.b(i)– 

(iii), Section II.C.4.a. and b. comply with 

section 110(l) because the revisions are 

limited to the filing of revised APENs 

that are designed to update Colorado’s 

emissions inventory or used to calculate 

emissions fees. The revisions to the 

public notice minor source permitting 

requirements comply with section 110(l) 

because as discussed below, we propose 

to interpret that revisions are consistent 

with our regulations and guidance. 

Colorado’s February 25, 2015 

submittal also revises its APEN 

requirements. The APEN revisions in 

Part A clarify that, for purposes of filing 

a revised APEN, the thresholds for 

determining significant changes are 

based on the emission unit’s actual 

emissions on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis, not total facility-wide emissions. 

These revisions also clarify that APENs 

filed for the following purposes need 

only report actual emissions: Solely to 

update an APEN before it expires; 

change in the owner or operator of any 

facility, process of activity; or report a 

significant change in emissions. APENs 

filed to update control equipment or 

modify a permit limitation would 

continue to report both uncontrolled 

actual and controlled actual emissions. 

The revisions to Part A, Section 

II.C.2.b(i)–(iii), Section II.C.4.a. and b 

streamline the requirements for filing 

revised APENs because the sources 

actual annual emissions is the relevant 

information for emissions inventory and 

fee purposes. 

The CAA contains three programs 

governing construction of new and 

modified stationary sources, collectively 

referred to as new source review (NSR): 

Minor NSR, PSD, and nonattainment 

NSR.1 The revisions in the February 25, 

2015 submittal to the public notice 

requirements in Regulation 3, Part B, 

Section III.C.4 apply only to the minor 

NSR program. They do not apply to the 

PSD and nonattainment NSR permit 

programs, which have separate public 

notice requirements in Regulation 3, 

Part D, Section IV.A. 

Requirements for the minor NSR 

program are provided in 40 CFR 51.160 

to 51.164. With respect to public notice 

of minor NSR approvals, the state must 

provide ‘‘a notice by prominent 

advertisement in the area affected.’’ 40 

CFR 51.161(b)(3). On April 17, 2012, the 

EPA issued a guidance memorandum 

stating that we intended to interpret 

‘‘prominent advertisement’’ in a medianeutral fashion.2 The memorandum 

explained that states could meet the 

requirement by publication of the notice 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

39398 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3 Id. at 1. 

4The EPA also revised requirements for posting 

approval documents for public inspection to allow 

for posting the documents at a physical location or 

on a public Web site identified by the state or local 

agency. 81 FR 71629. Colorado’s February 25, 2015 

submittal retains (with a minor grammatical 

change) the currently approved method of posting 

the materials at the county clerk’s office for the 

county in which the source is or will be located. 

in appropriate newspaper, or could opt 

to publish the notice using other media 

so long as it would be reasonable to 

conclude that the public would have 

routine and ready access to the 

alternative publishing venue and the 

use of the alternative venue would be 

consistent with the state’s law or SIP.3

On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71613) 

the EPA revised the public notice 

requirements for Clean Air Act 

permitting programs.4 In the 2016 final 

action, the EPA also revised the April 

17, 2012 interpretation of ‘‘prominent 

advertisement’’ in 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3) 

for the minor NSR program by 

extending it to ‘‘synthetic minor’’ 

permits, that is, permits that contain 

legally and practically enforceable 

restrictions that result in the source not 

being subject to major NSR 

requirements. 81 FR 71617. 

In this action, the EPA proposes to 

interpret ‘‘prominent advertisement’’ in 

similar fashion, that is, as media neutral 

and satisfied by any publishing venue to 

which it would be reasonable to 

conclude the public has routine and 

ready access. The February 25, 2015 SIP 

revisions require the public notice to be 

published in either a newspaper of 

general distribution in the area in which 

the source is or will be located, or by 

other means necessary to assure notice 

to the affected public, including posting 

notice on the publicly accessible portion 

of the Division’s Web site. We propose 

to determine that this is adequate as 

‘‘prominent advertisement.’’ We are not 

proposing to reassess Colorado’s minor 

NSR program with respect to public 

participation processes generally; we are 

only proposing to act on revisions that 

affect the publication of the notice 

specifically. This proposal is limited to 

the revisions as they apply to the SIP 

and criteria pollutants; we are not 

proposing action on provisions 

regarding ‘‘federal hazardous air 

pollutants’’ that are covered under 

authorities. 

For the reasons expressed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve revisions to 

Regulation 3, Parts A, B and D and 

Appendix A from the February 25, 2015 

submittal as shown in Table 1 below. 

Appendix A was revised as a 

conforming change to the APEN 

revisions. We are also proposing to 

approve the renumbering and formatting 

changes for the definition of ‘‘emission 

unit’’ in Regulation 3, Part D, I.A.13.a.; 

and II.A.13.a.(i)–(ii). 

TABLE 1—LIST OF COLORADO REVISIONS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO

APPROVE

Revised sections in February 10, 2015 

submission proposed for approval 

Regulation Number 3, Part A: 

II.C.2.b.(i)–(iii); and II.C.4.a. and b. 

Regulation Number 3, Part B: 

III.C.4. 

Regulation Number 3, Part D: 

I.A.13.a.; II.A.13.a.(i)–(ii); VI.A.2.; 

VI.A.2.c.; and VI.B.3.a.(iii) 

Appendix A 

The EPA is not acting on revisions 

from Colorado’s February 25, 2015 

submittal related to greenhouse gas and 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

revisions and the associated 

renumbering which was a result of 

Colorado’s proposed greenhouse gas 

revisions in Parts A and D. These 

revisions will be acted on in a separate 

future rulemaking. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission (Commission) Regulation 

Number 3, Parts A, B and D discussed 

in section III of this preamble. The EPA 

has made, and will continue to make, 

these documents generally available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 159 / Friday, August 18, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39399 

Dated: July 26, 2017. 

Debra H. Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17219 Filed 8–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P?≤ 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 158 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0683; FRL–9965–54] 

RIN 2070–AK41 

Pesticides; Technical Amendment to 

Data Requirements for Antimicrobial 

Pesticides 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a correction 

pertaining to the ‘‘200 ppb (parts per 

billion) level’’ described in the 

antimicrobial pesticides data 

requirements regulation to clarify that 

the 200 ppb level is based on total 

estimated daily dietary intake for an 

individual and not on the amount of 

residue present on a single food, as is 

incorrectly implied by the current 

regulatory text. This change is intended 

to enhance understanding of the data 

required to support an antimicrobial 

pesticide registration and does not alter 

the burden or costs associated with 

these previously-promulgated 

requirements. Through this action, EPA 

is not proposing any new data 

requirements or any other revisions 

(substantive or otherwise) to existing 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0683, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cameo Smoot, Field and External 

Affairs Division (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; (703) 

305–5454; email address: 

smoot.cameo@epa.gov. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a producer or 

registrant of an antimicrobial pesticide 

product or device. The following list of 

North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to: 

• NAICS code 325320, Pesticide and 

Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing, e.g., pesticide 

manufacturers or formulators of 

pesticide products, importers, exporters, 

or any person or company who seeks to 

register a pesticide product or to obtain 

a tolerance for a pesticide product. 

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. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This action is issued under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 

et seq. and the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing a single correction 

to the data requirements for 

antimicrobial pesticide products that are 

codified in 40 CFR part 158, subpart W. 

EPA is not proposing any other changes 

(substantive or otherwise) or any new 

data requirements. The correction to the 

‘‘200 ppb level’’ described in 40 CFR 

158.2230(d) will clarify that the 200 ppb 

level is based on total estimated daily 

dietary intake for an individual and not 

on the amount of residue present on a 

single food, as is incorrectly implied by 

the current regulatory text. 

D. What are the incremental costs and 

benefits of this action? 

No new data requirements are 

proposed and this correction does not 

result in any new burden or costs being 

imposed. The proposed change 

represents a technical correction; 

therefore, registrants will not submit 

more studies than they are currently 

submitting in their application 

packages. As a result, this change will 

not cause any increase in the cost to 

register an antimicrobial pesticide 

product. 

EPA believes the correction should 

provide registrants with more specific 

information such that it could reduce 

the number of consultations (emails, 

phone calls, and meetings) registrants 

seek to ensure that they are correctly 

interpreting the regulations before they 

begin their testing programs. Applicants 

may save time and money by better 

understanding when studies are needed 

and by not submitting unneeded 

studies. Submission of all required 

studies at the time of application may 

reduce potential delays in the 

registration process, thereby allowing 

products to enter the market earlier. The 

clarity derived from having more 

understandable data requirements may 

be especially important to small firms 

and new firms entering the industry 

who may have less experience with the 

pesticide registration program than 

those firms that routinely work with the 

Agency. 

Although we believe that the 

correction reduces uncertainty and will 

result in a decrease in the number of 

inquiries registrants may make to EPA 

seeking clarification on this particular 

point, EPA did not attempt to determine 

whether or not, or the extent to which, 

the correction might result in any cost 

savings for the registrants or for EPA. 

Because EPA is not proposing any new 

data requirements and also made sure 

not to increase the frequency at which 

the existing data are required, EPA 

determined there is no need to perform 

an economic analysis for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

E. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS