[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14442-14446]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05379]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0550; FRL-9957-56-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso
Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to
approve the required second carbon monoxide (CO) maintenance plan as a
revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The El Paso,
Texas CO maintenance area (El Paso Area) has been demonstrating
consistent air quality monitoring at or below 85% of the CO National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). Because of this, the
State of Texas, through its designee, submitted the required second
maintenance plan for the El Paso Area as a Limited Maintenance Plan
(LMP).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 22, 2017 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives relevant adverse comment by April 20, 2017. If
the EPA receives such comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0550, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Jeffrey Riley, 214-665-
8542<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Jeffrey Riley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-
665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, a portion of the City of El Paso,
Texas was designated and classified as a moderate nonattainment area
for CO because it did not meet the NAAQS for this criteria pollutant 56
FR 56694 (November 1, 1991). The former El Paso CO nonattainment area
is restricted to a narrow strip along the Rio Grande, adjacent to
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. El Paso's former classification as a moderate
nonattainment area under sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a) of the CAA
imposed a schedule for attainment of the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995.
    EPA approved the El Paso Area's CAA section 179 attainment
demonstration that showed attainment but for emissions from Mexico, the
motor vehicle emissions budget, and the contingency plan 68 FR 39457
(July 2, 2003).
    EPA approved the redesignation of the El Paso CO nonattainment area
to attainment for the CO NAAQS, the associated CAA section 175A(a)
maintenance plan, and the included motor vehicle emissions budgets at
73 FR 45162 (August 4, 2008). The maintenance plan ensures continued
attainment of the CO standard until 2020.
    On September 21, 2016, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) submitted a revision to the El Paso SIP, providing the
second 10-year update to the CO maintenance plan for the area, as
required eight years after redesignation by section 175A(b) of the Act
and also submitted a request for approval of the maintenance plan as a
LMP. The purpose of the LMP is to ensure continued maintenance of CO
NAAQS in the El Paso Area for the duration of the second 10-year
maintenance period of 2018-2028 by demonstrating that future emissions
of this criteria pollutant are expected to remain at or below emission
levels necessary for continued attainment of the current CO NAAQS.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Since there are few specific content requirements defined in
section 175A of the Act for subsequent (or second) maintenance plan
revisions, EPA has exercised its discretion in determining the
recommended content of such plans.\1\ If an area meets the criteria,
the State (area) may submit a maintenance plan that is more streamlined
than a full Maintenance Plan.\2\ Such a streamlined plan is called a
Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP), and the criteria of a LMP is detailed
more below. EPA's interpretation of section 175A of the CAA, as it
pertains to LMP's for CO, is contained in the October 6, 1995, national
guidance memorandum titled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.\3\ The LMP guidance allows for
areas that can demonstrate consistent air quality monitoring data at or
below 85% of the NAAQS for carbon monoxide to elect for a LMP. Other
criteria for the LMP option are detailed in the 1995 guidance as well.
The TCEQ has opted to develop a LMP for the El Paso Area to fulfill the
second 10-year CO maintenance period required by the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See generally EPA memorandum ``Procedures for Processing
Requests for to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' from John
Calgani, Director Air Quality Management Division to Regional Air
Division Directors (September 4, 1992); and EPA memorandum ``Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment
Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Director Air Quality Strategies &
Standards Division to Regional Air Division Directors (November 16,
1994). Copies of both memorandums are included in the docket for
this rulemaking.
    \2\ A limited maintenance plan generally includes all the
elements of a full CAA section 175A maintenance plan except that a
limited maintenance plan is not required to include motor vehicle
emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
    \3\ A copy of the October 6, 1995 Guidance Memorandum is
included in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the above guidance, EPA will consider the
maintenance demonstration satisfied if the monitoring data show the 8-
hour CO design value is at or below 7.65 parts per million (ppm), or
85% of the 8-hour

CO NAAQS of 9 ppm. The EPA believes that if the area begins the
maintenance period at or below 85% of the applicable NAAQS, the
continuing applicability of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program (PSD) and other Federal measures along with the existing
control measures already adopted should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance of the NAAQS over the 10-year period.
    The EPA has reviewed the State's SIP submittal for the El Paso
Area. Per our 1995 guidance above, a LMP consists of several core
provisions: An attainment inventory, a demonstration of maintenance of
the applicable NAAQS, operation of a monitoring network, a provision
for contingency measures, and a discussion of the approach necessary to
meet conformity requirements. The following is a summary of the
criteria for a LMP and the EPA's evaluation of how each provision has
been met by the SIP submittal.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    Under the LMP option, a cap on total emissions is not needed during
the first or second 10-year maintenance period, and there is no
requirement to project emissions over the maintenance period because an
area's monitoring data satisfy the air quality criteria of the LMP by
beginning the maintenance period at or below 85% of the CO NAAQS.
However, the maintenance plan should contain an attainment year
emission inventory to identify a level of CO emissions in the area that
is sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. Emission inventories contain
estimates of how much CO is produced by all categories in the
maintenance area on an annual basis: Point sources, area sources, on-
road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. The September 21,
2016 SIP submittal contains a summary of the CO emissions inventory for
the El Paso Area for the base year 2014. The methods used to determine
the El Paso CO emission inventory are consistent with the EPA's most
recent guidance on developing emission inventories, and the inventory
incorporates the latest information and planning assumptions available
at the time of its development.\4\ Because violations of the CO NAAQS
are most likely to occur on winter weekdays, the inventory prepared is
for a ``typical winter day''.\5\ The table below shows the estimated
tons of CO emitted per winter day by source category for the 2014 base
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories
for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I: General
Guidance for Stationary Sources, EPA-450/4-91-016, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1991; and Air
Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Technical Report
Series--Volumes 1-10.
    \5\ See the above-referenced October 1995 CO LMP guidance under
``3.a.--Attainment Inventory'' and EPA's EI guidance titled
``Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon
Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume I,'' also cited in the
October 1995 CO LMP guidance.

             Table I--CO Emissions by Source Category, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Tons per
                     Source category                          winter
                                                              weekday
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................            5.12
Area....................................................            8.76
Non-road mobile.........................................           33.02
On-road mobile..........................................          112.26
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          159.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This LMP demonstrates continued attainment of the CO standard for
El Paso County in 2014 through monitoring data. The 2014 emissions
inventory shows that emissions decreased during the initial 10-year
maintenance period even with growth in vehicle miles traveled, economic
activity, and population.

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The State has chosen to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by
continued monitoring of the air quality in the El Paso Area. To qualify
for the LMP option, the design value for each monitor should be at or
below 85% of the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The value corresponding to this 85%
threshold is 7.65 ppm for the 8-hour CO NAAQS. The last monitored
violation of the CO NAAQS in the El Paso Area occurred in 1993 and
monitored CO levels have been steadily in decline ever since. For this
submission, the State provided data showing monitored CO values from
2006-2015, reflecting a 2015 8-hour CO design value of 2.8 ppm. Thus,
the design value for the 8-hour standard is less than 31% of the CO
NAAQS. The EPA believes that if an area begins the maintenance period
at or below the 85% threshold, it is unreasonable to expect that so
much growth will occur during the 10-year maintenance period to cause a
violation of the NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Section IV.b of the above referenced 11/16/1994 ozone
LMP guidance (November 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO control program for El Paso Area is comprised of both
Federal and local measures. The current maintenance plan 73 FR 45162
(August 4, 2008) for the area includes several control strategies that
will remain in place for the duration of the second 10-year maintenance
period of 2018-2028. The Federal strategies are continued
implementation of the Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards along
with the requirement for reduced sulfur in gasoline, which became
effective on February 10, 2000. 65 FR 6697 (February 10, 2000).
Additionally, EPA's newly approved Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and
Fuel Standards at 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014) will reduce CO emissions
from new, light-duty motor vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles beginning model year 2017 and will be fully phased
in by model year 2025. The Tier 3 fuel standards will lower the sulfur
content of gasoline and make emission control systems more effective
for both existing and new vehicles. As newer vehicles gradually replace
older ones in the fleet, these control programs will result in lowered
CO emissions in the El Paso County Area and elsewhere.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Tier 2 final rule Regulatory Impact Analysis notes
reductions in NO, VOC, particulate, SOX, CO, and
hazardous air pollutant emissions from cars and light trucks by
mandating lower VOC, NOX, and PM emission standards for
these vehicles' emissions control systems, as well as requiring
gasoline sulfur levels be reduced. Sulfur interferes with the
operation of advanced exhaust treatment systems; reduced gasoline
sulfur content improves the efficiency of these systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Local control strategies remaining in place for the duration of the
second 10-year LMP include a vehicle emissions Inspection and
Maintenance (I&M) Program, an Oxygenated Fuels Program, and the PSD
Program. 73 FR 45162 (August 4, 2008). The I&M program has been in
effect in the El Paso Area since January 1, 1987, and initially
consisted of two-speed idle (TSI) testing for all vehicles. On January
1, 2007, an enhanced vehicle I&M program began On-Board Diagnostics
testing for all model year 1996 and newer vehicles and continued to use
TSI testing for all model year 1995 and older vehicles. All vehicle
emissions inspection stations in the El Paso I&M program area are
required to offer both tests. The program addresses CO emissions as
well as ozone precursor emissions. The original program as described
above will remain in place for the duration of the second 10-year
maintenance period (2018-2028).
    The El Paso Oxygenated Fuel Program aims to reduce vehicle
emissions by providing for the use of oxygenated fuels. Various forms
of this program have been in place during the winter months (October 1
through March 31) since October 1, 1992. The minimum oxygenate content
of winter fuels in El Paso County is 2.7% by weight, and this
requirement will remain in effect for the

duration of the second 10-year (2018-2028) maintenance period. This
requirement controls CO emissions by creating more complete combustion
of fuel.
    Although not a direct local control measure, the State's PSD
Program is a preconstruction permitting program that has been approved
as part of the Texas SIP and applies to El Paso County. This program
has been in effect for CO since the El Paso Area was redesignated to
attainment in 2008. Under this program, new stationary sources of CO
are evaluated and are required to use the Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) to control emissions. This program will continue as a
control strategy during the second maintenance period of 2018-2028.
Therefore, we find that the State demonstrates continued maintenance of
the standard.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    The Plan includes a commitment to maintain operation of the
existing EPA-approved air quality monitoring network in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. The TCEQ will continue to monitor CO through the end of
the second 10-year maintenance period to ensure the CO level remains
below 85% of the NAAQS. This data will be reported to EPA annually.
    To comply with national ambient air monitoring requirements, and to
better understand El Paso's air quality problems, the State has
operated a CO monitoring network in the El Paso Area since the 1970's.
In 2000, the El Paso monitoring network consisted of seven sites,
including the Ascarate Park site at the Texas/Mexico border, which
recorded the highest concentrations of CO that year. In recognition of
significantly declining CO concentrations in the El Paso Area since
2000, Texas has gradually reduced and consolidated the El Paso CO
monitoring network to three sites in 2015 with approval from the EPA.
To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the LMP should contain provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. The State has an approved monitoring network that includes CO
monitoring in the El Paso Area that was most recently approved by the
EPA on October 27, 2016. In the El Paso CO LMP, the State commits to
maintaining a CO monitoring network to verify continued attainment of
the NAAQS.

D. Contingency Plan

    Contingency measures are specific control strategies that will be
activated if they are triggered by a predefined event. Section 175A(d)
of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include contingency
provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs
after redesignation of the area to attainment. To meet this
requirement, the State has identified appropriate contingency measures
along with a schedule for the development and implementation of such
measures. In the September 21, 2016 submittal, the State specifies the
contingency trigger as a violation of the CO standard based upon air
quality monitoring data from the El Paso monitoring network. In the
event that a monitored violation of the CO standard occurs in any
portion of the maintenance area, the State will first analyze the data
to determine if the violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's
jurisdiction (e.g., emissions from Mexico or another state) or within
its jurisdiction. If the violation was caused by actions outside TCEQ's
jurisdiction, TCEQ will notify the EPA. If TCEQ determines the
violation was caused by actions within TCEQ's jurisdiction, TCEQ
commits to adopt and implement the identified contingency measures as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 18 months.
    The State specifically identifies the following contingency
measures to re-attain the standard:
     Vehicle idling restrictions.
     Improved vehicle I/M.
    The LMP indicates that the State may evaluate other potential
strategies to address any future violations in the most appropriate and
effective manner possible. Based on the above, we find that the
contingency measures provided in the State's El Paso CO LMP are
sufficient and meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs,
and projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\8\ Similarly, Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the ``budget test'' specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the
same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be
unlimited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 78 FR 48611, 48613 (August 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option
are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other
transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the
State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The EPA confers regularly with the El Paso Area MPO and
Transportation

Policy Board, TCEQ, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Federal
Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration to
review the Transportation Improvement Program for the El Paso Area to
determine if the area is meeting the transportation conformity
requirements under 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. The El Paso Area is
currently meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A.
    Based on the evaluation outlined above, the LMP satisfies the
requirements of the Act for the second 10-year update to the El Paso CO
maintenance area.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the CO LMP for the El Paso Area submitted by
the TCEQ on September 21, 2016 as a revision to the Texas SIP because
the State adequately demonstrates that the El Paso Area will maintain
the CO NAAQS and meet all the criteria of a LMP through the second 10-
year maintenance period. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on
May 22, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse
comment by April 20, 2017. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
    Samuel Coleman was designated the Acting Regional Administrator on
March 13, 2017, through the order of succession outlined in Regional
Order R6-1110.1, a copy of which is included in the docket for this
action.

    Dated: March 13, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270 (e), the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding an entry to the end of the table to read
follows:

Sec.  52.2270   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State
                                    Applicable geographic   submittal/
      Name of SIP  provision        or nonattainment area   effective    EPA approval date         Comments
                                                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Second 10-year Carbon Monoxide     El Paso, TX...........    9/21/2016  3/21/2017 [Insert    ...................
 maintenance plan (limited                                               Federal Register
 maintenance plan) for the El                                            citation].
 Paso CO area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-05379 Filed 3-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 95)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23373]
[DOCID:fr19my09-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196; FRL-8906-7]

Pennsylvania: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal
Register of April 29, 2009 (74 FR 19480), a document concerning
Pennsylvania's Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions. This document corrects the Docket Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3LC50,
Office of State Programs, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 29, 2009 in FR Doc. E9-9790, on
page 19480, the following corrections are made:
    1. In the Heading of the document, the Docket Number is corrected
to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.
    2. In the sentence following ``ADDRESSES:'' in the second column,
the docket number is corrected to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.
    3. In the sentence following ``Instructions:'' in the third column,
the docket number is corrected to read ``EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0196''.

    Dated: May 7, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-11655 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EcoReference No.: 344  Rejection Code: Secondary Duplicative Data

	32. 	Peele, D. B., Farmer, J. D., and MacPhail, R. C. (1988).
Behavioral Consequences of Chelator Administration in Acute Cadmium
Toxicity.  Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 11: 416-428.

EcoReference No.: 90538

Chemical of Concern: SAC,CdCl;  Habitat:  T;  Effect Codes:  GRO,BEH;
Rejection Code:  NO ENDPOINT(SAC).

	33. 	Roshon, R. D., McCann, J. H., Thompson, D. G., and Stephenson, G.
R. (1999). Effects of Seven Forestry Management Herbicides on
Myriophyllum sibiricum, as Compared with Other Nontarget Aquatic
Organisms.  Can.J.For.Res. 29: 1158-1169.

EcoReference No.: 60978

Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,GYP,HXZ,IZP,MSFM,SMM,TPR;  Habitat:  A;
Effect Codes:  GRO,MOR; Rejection Code:  NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),TARGET
SMM.

	34. 	Schiffman, S. S., Suggs, M. S., Donia, M. B. A., Erickson, R. P.,
and Nagle, H. T. (1995). Environmental Pollutants Alter Taste Responses
in the Gerbil.  Pharmacol.Biochem.Behav. 52: 189-194.

EcoReference No.: 74836

Chemical of Concern: CBF,PYT,MTM,ACP,CPY,DEM,MLN,CBL,FNV,PAQT,GYP,SMM ;
Habitat:  T;  Effect Codes:  PHY; Rejection Code:  NO ENDPOINT(ALL
CHEMS).

	35. 	Van-Moppes, D., Barak, Z., Chipman, D. M., Gollop, N., and Arad,
S. (1989). An Herbicide (Sulfometuron Methyl) Resistant Mutant in
Porphyridium (Rhodophyta).  J.Phycol. 25: 108-112.

EcoReference No.: 90533

Chemical of Concern: SMM;  Habitat:  A;  Effect Codes:  POP,PHY;
Rejection Code:  NO ENDPOINT(SMM)

 That is, 0.375 pounds of active ingredient per acre per year.

  All first-order rates / degradation half-lives discussed in this
document, were, unless otherwised specified, calculated from linear
regression of log-transformed decay data.

  In most cases simple first-order degradation rates and half-lives
(calculated from linear regression of log-transformed data) are used
(often along with DT50 and DT90 values) to represent sulfometuron methyl
persistence in the environmental fate studies.  However, particularly in
the field dissipation studies, over time pseudo first-order kinetics
often became less of an adequate descriptor for residue decline; in such
cases the DT50 and DT90 values provide perspective on how much the
decline patterns deviated from that predicted by a first-order model.

 A measure of how often (on average) an event will occur that is greater
than some chosen value.  In this case,  the chosen frequency is 1 in 10
years; the chosen EEC is such that the sulfometuron methyl concentration
would equal or exceed the EEC on average of one in ten years.  The full
distribution of the 1 in 10 year return frequency values is provided in
 REF _Ref179348297 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  APPENDIX C:  Ecological Aquatic
Exposure Modeling .

 Note that the AgDRIFT Tier I and II terminology should not be confused
with the Tier 1 and 2 used for most other EFED models.  In AgDRIFT, Tier
I refers to an operating mode with more limited options and Tier II
refers to a mode where there is much more user access to selection of
model inputs. Unlike with most EFED models, a Tier I AgDRIFT assessment
should not be presumed to represent more conservative (higher exposure)
scenarios than those represented in a Tier II AgDRIFT assessment.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   31

 PAGE   112

 PAGE   113

Sulfometuron Methyl Applied To Foliage Via Aerial And Ground Sprays

Indirect effects

Gill/Integument Uptake & Ingestion

Vascular Aquatic

Plants

Individual Animals

Reduced survival, growth and/or reproduction

Attribute Change

Aquatic

Animals

Exposure Point

Stressor

Nonvascular Aquatic Plants

Plant Population

Reduced Population Growth

Receptor

Source/ Transport

Pathways

Surface Water/ Sediment

Spray

Drift

Direct Contact &

Root Uptake

Source/ Exposure Media

Runoff/

Erosion

Leaching/ Infiltration

Indirect effects

Groundwater

Individual Plants

Reduced Survival and Growth

Groundwater

Individual Plants

Reduced Survival and Growth

Direct Contact/

Root Uptake

Terrestrial

Plants

Individual Animals

Reduced survival, growth and/or reproduction

Attribute Change

Terrestrial

Animals

Ingestion

Exposure Point

Foliage/Soil

Inhalation/ Dermal

Air/ Soil Particles

Terrestrial Food (foliage, fruits insects)

Source/ Exposure Media

Leaching/ Infiltration

Runoff/

Erosion

Spray

Drift

Direct Deposition

Volatilization/Wind Erosion

Receptor

Source/ Transport

Pathways

Stressor

Sulfometuron methyl applied to foliage via aerial and ground sprays


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4077-4079]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01290]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0034]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; North American International Auto Show; Detroit
River, Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adding a permanent security zone, which
will be enforced 2 weeks each year, on the Detroit River, Detroit,
Michigan. This security zone is intended to restrict vessels from a
portion of the Detroit River in order to ensure the safety and security
of participants, visitors, and public officials at the Annual North
American International Auto Show (NAIAS), which is held at Cobo Hall in
downtown Detroit, MI.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice January 24, 2014.
For the purposes of enforcement in 2014, actual notice will be used
from 7 a.m. January 13, 2014, until 11:59 p.m. January 26, 2014. For
2014, the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River,
Detroit, MI security zone described in 33 CFR 165.915(a)(3) will be
enforced from 7 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. daily, from January 13, 2014,
through January 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
number USCG-2013-0034. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. You
may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention Department, Sector
Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material
to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

 DHS Department of Homeland Security
 FR Federal Register
 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
 TFR Temporary Final Rule
 NAD 83 North American Datum 1983

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 29, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Security Zones; Captain of the Port Detroit
in the Federal Register (78 FR 19161). No comments were received in
response to the March 29, 2013 publication in the Federal Register; a
public meeting was not requested, and no public meetings were held.
    In addition to the aforementioned NPRM, the Coast Guard had
published multiple temporary final rules (TFRs) in the past in response
to the Annual North American International Auto Show (NAIAS), annually
establishing a temporary security zone to protect participants and
spectators associated with the NAIAS. Because this event will likely
continue to recur annually, the Captain of the Port Detroit is
establishing a permanent security zone, thus alleviating the need to
publish annual TFRs in the future.

B. Basis and Purpose

    For two weeks in the month of January, the Annual North American
International Auto Show will be held at Cobo Hall in downtown Detroit,
MI. The NAIAS is the prime venue for introducing the world's most
anticipated vehicles. In 2013, the NAIAS attendance for the public
showing was nearly 800,000 people and press preview days attracted over
5,000 journalists representing 62 countries. Attendance and
participation at the 2012 and 2011 NAIAS events were similar, and the
attendance and participation at future NAIAS events is anticipated to
be similar too.
    In years past, NAIAS has attracted numerous protesters from various
organizations due to the state of the economy, worker layoffs, and the
closures of automotive dealerships

around the country. Because of the likely presence of high profile
visitors at future NAIAS events, it is possible that protests may
continue in subsequent years. Consequently, the Captain of the Port
Detroit has determined that establishing a security zone in the
vicinity of the NAIAS event is necessary to safeguard portions of the
Detroit River from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage or other
subversive acts.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    As stated previously, no comments were received in response to the
NPRM published on March 29, 2013, and no public meetings were requested
or held. We made no changes from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    As for the actual rule itself, the Captain of the Port Detroit has
determined that establishing this permanent security zone is necessary
to safeguard portions of the Detroit River during NAIAS events. Thus,
the Coast Guard is amending 33 CFR 165.915 by adding paragraph (a)(3),
which will establish a permanent security zone. The security zone will
be enforced for the duration of the event and will encompass an area of
the Detroit River beginning at a point of origin on land adjacent to
the west end of Joe Lewis Arena at 42[deg]19.44' N, 083[deg]03.11' W;
then extending offshore approximately 150 yards to 42[deg]19.39' N,
083[deg]03.07' W; then proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a
point at 42[deg]19.72' N, 083[deg]01.88' W; then proceeding onshore to
a point on land adjacent the Tricentennial State Park at 42[deg]19.79'
N, 083[deg]01.90' W; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline to
connect back to the point of origin (NAD 83). Vessels in close
proximity to the security zone will be subject to increased monitoring
and boarding. The precise times and dates of enforcement for this
security zone will be determined and published annually.
    This final rule references an annual notice of enforcement that
will announce the exact dates for the 2 weeks in January that the
security zone will be enforced. See 33 CFR 165.915 (a)(3). For 2014,
the North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit, MI
security zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. daily, from
January 13, 2014, through 26, 2014.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene
representative. Entry into, transit, or anchoring within the security
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit
or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    The Captain of the Port will use all appropriate means to notify
the public when the security zone in this rule will be enforced. Such
means may include, among other things, publication in the Federal
Register, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or,
upon request, by facsimile (fax). Also, the Captain of the Port will
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public if
enforcement of the affected area in this section is cancelled
prematurely.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will
have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other
agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan
recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The
security zone created by this rule will be relatively small and
enforced for relatively short time. Also, the security zone is designed
to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Thus, restrictions on
vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.
Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through
the security zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the previously mentioned portion of the Detroit River,
Detroit, MI between 8 a.m. and midnight on the dates of the event,
which will be determined annually. The security zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: This rule will not obstruct the regular flow
of commercial traffic and will allow vessel traffic to pass around the
security zone. In the event that this security zone affects shipping,
commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port
Detroit to transit through the security zone. The Coast Guard will give
notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is
in effect.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that
Order and determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further
Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment.
    This rule involves the establishment of a security zone and is
therefore, categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1
of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist
supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination
are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  165.915 by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.915  Security zones; Captain of the Port Detroit.

    (a) * * *
    (3) North American International Auto Show, Detroit River, Detroit,
MI. All waters of the Detroit River encompassed by a line beginning at
a point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of Joe Lewis Arena
at 42[deg]19.44' N, 083[deg]03.11' W; then extending offshore
approximately 150 yards to 42[deg]19.39' N, 083[deg]03.07' W; then
proceeding upriver approximately 2000 yards to a point at 42[deg]19.72'
N, 083[deg]01.88' W; then proceeding onshore to a point on land
adjacent to the Tricentennial State Park at 42[deg]19.79' N,
083[deg]01.90' W; then proceeding downriver along the shoreline to
connect back to the point of origin on land adjacent to the west end of
the Joe Louis Arena (NAD 83). This security zone will be enforced for
two weeks in the month of January with the exact dates and times to be
published annually via a Notice of Enforcement.
* * * * *

    Dated: January 10, 2014.
J. E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2014-01290 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51350-51351]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24116]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0484; FRL-9970-28-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Continuous Opacity Monitoring Requirements for Municipal
Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the State of Maryland's Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 111(d)/129 State Plan for municipal waste combustors
(MWCs). The revisions contain Maryland's amendments to Regulations .07
and .08 under the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.08. These
amendments update the MWC references to opacity compliance. The
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)'s discontinued Technical
Memorandum (TM 90-01) is no longer applicable and the regulations now
refer to COMAR 26.11.31, which codifies quality assurance (QA) and
quality control (QC) procedures for continuous opacity monitors (COMs).
EPA is approving this revision to remove TM 90-01 from Maryland's CAA
section 111(d)/129 State Plan in accordance with the requirements of
the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 5, 2018 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by December 6,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0484 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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: Emily Linn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 10, 2016, the State of Maryland submitted a formal revision
(MD Submittal #16-05) to its CAA section 111(d)/129 State Plan for
MWCs. The revisions contain Maryland's amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>,
``Requirements for an Existing Large MWC with a Capacity Greater Than
250 Tons Per Day.'' These amendments update the MWC references to
opacity compliance previously made by MDE. MDE's discontinued technical
memorandum which previously addressed QA/QC procedures for COMs, TM 90-
01, is no longer state effective and the Maryland regulations therefore
now refer to COMAR 26.11.31, which codifies similar QA and QC
procedures for COMs.\1\ In a state rulemaking action, MDE also revised
the title of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, ``Requirements for Municipal Waste
Combustors with a Capacity of 35 tons or greater per day and less than
or equal to 250 Tons Per Day,'' to clarify that the state regulation
applies to small MWCs. However, this clarification to the title of
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> is a minor administrative change and is not part of
this action. The text of <IP_ADDRESS> remains unchanged, and thus the
requirements for MWCs remain unchanged. EPA is approving this revision
to remove TM 90-01 from Maryland's 111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA as the changes are
administrative in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously approved Maryland's State Plan for large MWCs
on April 8, 2008 (see 73 FR 18970). In addition, EPA previously
approved, as a revision to the Maryland state implementation plan,
the regulatory requirements for QA/QC controls for COMs in COMAR
26.11.31. 81 FR 78048 (November 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of CAA Section 111(d)/129 State Plan Revision and EPA
Analysis

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's submittal to revise its CAA section
111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs in the context of the requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subpart Eb. These amendments are largely administrative in
nature. In this action, EPA is finalizing its determination that the
submitted revision meets the above-cited requirements. EPA is revising
40 CFR part 62, subpart V (Sec.  62.5110 and Sec.  61.5112) to reflect
this approval.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the May 10, 2016 Maryland CAA section 111(d)/129
State Plan revision submittal as a revision to Maryland's CAA section
111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs. EPA is publishing this rule without
prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment
and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the 111(d)/129 State Plan
revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on
January 5, 2018 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse
comment by December 6, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing Section 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing
requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS),
EPA has no authority to disapprove a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission
for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable
law for EPA, when it reviews a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission, to
use VCS in place of a Section 111(d)/129 plan submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 5, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action approving Maryland's revisions to their
111(d)/129 State Plan for MWCs may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 18, 2017.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 62 is amended
as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. Section 62.5110 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  62.5110  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) On May 10, 2016, Maryland submitted a revised State Plan and
related COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> amendments.

0
3. Section 62.5112 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  62.5112  Effective date.

* * * * *
    (c) The plan revision is effective January 5, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2017-24116 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16614]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0647; FRL-8546-4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Utah; Interstate Transport of Pollution and Other Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Utah on March 22 and September 17,
2007. The revisions address Interstate Transport Pollution requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act and a typographical
error in Rule R307-130-4, ``Options.'' The March 22, 2007 submittal
adds ``Section XXIII, Interstate Transport'' to the Utah SIP, and Rule
R307-110-36 to the Utah Administrative Code (UAC). The new Rule R307-
110-36 incorporates by reference the Interstate Transport declaration
into the State rules. The September 17, 2007 submittal amends UAC Rule
R307-130-4, ``Options,'' by removing from the text the word ``not''
which had been accidentally placed in this rule. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-
controversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the
direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not
take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-0647, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instruction on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and
Regulations section of this Federal Register.

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

    Dated: March 12, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
 [FR Doc. E8-6272 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30104-30105]
[FR Doc No: E9-14753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-0457]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0057, 1625-0065, 1625-0104, and 1625-
0105

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) and Analyses to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
requesting an extension of its approval for the following collections
of information: (1) 1625-0057, Small Passenger Vessels--Title 46 CFR
Subchapters K and T; (2) 1625-0065, Offshore Supply Vessels--Title 46
CFR Subchapter L; (3) 1625-0104, Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous
Materials; and (4) 1625-0105, Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting
Requirements for Barges Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland
Rivers, Eighth Coast Guard District and the Illinois Waterway, Ninth
Coast Guard District. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB, the Coast
Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 24,
2009.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket [USCG-2009-
0457], please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (DMF) (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand deliver: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Manager, US
Coast Guard, 2100 2ND\\ ST SW. STOP 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For Further Information: Contact Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public participation and request for comments

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. We will post all comments received, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal
information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their
DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2009-0457], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your

submission. You may submit your comments and material by electronic
means, mail, fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them
by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8-\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If
you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and will address them accordingly.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number for this Notice [USCG-2009-0457] in the
Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room
W12-140 on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information Collection Request.

    1. Title: Small Passenger Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapters K and
T.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0057.
    Summary: The information requirements are necessary for the proper
administration and enforcement of the program on safety of commercial
vessels as it affects small passenger vessels (under 100 gross tons)
that carry more than 6 passengers.
    Need: Under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3305 and 3306, the Coast
Guard prescribed regulations for the design, construction, alteration,
repair and operation of small passenger vessels to secure the safety of
individuals and property on board. The Coast Guard uses the information
in this collection to ensure compliance with the requirements.
    Forms: CG-841, CG-854, CG-948, CG-949, CG-3752, CG-5256.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of small passenger vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 353,263
hours to 380,185 hours a year.
    2. Title: Offshore Supply Vessels--Title 46 CFR Subchapter L.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0065.
    Summary: Title 46 U.S.C. 3305 and 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard
to prescribe safety regulations. Title 46 CFR Subchapter L promulgates
marine safety regulations for offshore supply vessels (OSV).
    Need: The OSV posting/marking requirements are needed to provide
instructions to those onboard of actions to be taken in the event of an
emergency. The reporting/recordkeeping requirements verify compliance
with regulations without Coast Guard presence to witness routine
matters, including OSVs based overseas as an alternative to Coast Guard
re-inspection.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 6,169
hours to 2,068 hours a year.
    3. Title: Barges Carrying Bulk Hazardous Materials.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0104.
    Summary: This information is needed to ensure the safe shipment of
bulk hazardous liquids in barges. The requirements are necessary to
ensure barges meet safety standards and crewmembers have the
information necessary to operate barges safely.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. .3703 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
rules related to the carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes. Title
46 CFR part 151 prescribes rules for barges carrying bulk liquid
hazardous materials.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of tank barges.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 13,255
hours to 29,281 hours a year.
    4. Title: Regulated Navigation Area; Reporting Requirements for
Barges Loaded with Certain Dangerous Cargoes, Inland Rivers, Eighth
Coast Guard District and the Illinois Waterway, Ninth Coast Guard
District.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0105.
    Summary: The Coast Guard requires position, intended movement, and
fleeting operations reporting from barges carrying certain dangerous
cargoes (CDCs) in the inland rivers within the Eighth and Ninth Coast
Guard Districts.
    Need: This information is used to ensure port safety and security,
as well as, the uninterrupted flow of commerce.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, agents, masters, towing vessel operators,
persons in charge of barges loaded with CDCs, or having CDC residue
operating on the inland rivers within the Eighth and Ninth Coast Guard
Districts.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 1,179
hours to 2,196 hours a year.

    Dated: June 16, 2009.
M. B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-14753 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61629-61631]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26084]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604; FRL-9983-08]

TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC); Notice of
Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the peer review of the draft Risk
Evaluation for Colour Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) and
associated documents developed under EPA's existing chemical substance
process under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The peer review
panel deliberations will be conducted during a 4-day, in-person, public
meeting of the TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
This in-person meeting will also include a general TSCA orientation for
the TSCA SACC. A portion of the in-person meeting will be closed to the
public for the committee's discussion of information claimed as
confidential business information (CBI). Prior to the in-person
meeting, there will be a public, 2-hour preparatory virtual meeting to
consider the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions for this
peer review. During these upcoming meetings, the public is invited to
provide oral comments for the peer review on the draft risk evaluation
for PV29 and related documents. Comments on the draft charge questions
will be accepted prior to and during the 2-hour preparatory virtual
meeting. The TSCA SACC peer review panel will consider these comments
during their discussions.

DATES:
    Meetings: The preparatory virtual meeting will be held on January
8, 2019, from 2 p.m. to approximately 4 p.m. (EST). The 4-day in-person
meeting will be held from 1 p.m. (EST) to approximately 5:30 p.m. on
January 29, 2019 and from 9 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. on January
30, 31, and February 1, 2019.
    Oral comments: Requests to make oral comments during the
preparatory virtual meeting should be submitted on or before 12:00 p.m.
(EST) on January 4, 2019. In order to be included on the meeting
agenda, requests to make oral comments during the in-person 4-day peer
review meeting should be submitted on or before January 14, 2019.
Otherwise, requests to present oral comments during the in-person 4-day
peer review meeting will be accepted until and possibly during the in-
person meeting. Direct your requests to make oral comments to the
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
    For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. and Unit I.D. of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Written comments: Written comments on the scope and clarity of the
draft charge questions for the preparatory virtual meeting should be
submitted on or before January 7, 2019. Written comments on the draft
risk evaluation that are submitted on or before January 14, 2019 (see
83 FR 57473, November 15, 2018) (FRL-9986-45) will be provided to the
peer review panel members before the meeting. You may also submit
written comments on the first date of the in-person 4-day peer review
meeting by providing 30 copies of your written comments to the DFO at
the start of the meeting for the DFO to distribute to the panel
members. The TSCA SACC will consider written comments during their
discussions.
    Special accommodations: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES:
    Preparatory Virtual Meeting: The January 8, 2019 preparatory
virtual meeting is open to the public and will be conducted via webcast
using Adobe Connect and telephone. Registration is required to
participate by listening or presenting oral comments during the
preparatory virtual meeting. Please visit https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review website for additional information including how to
register.
    In-Person Meeting: The location of the January 29 to February 1,
2019 in-person meeting will be announced on the TSCA SACC website
(https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review) by mid-December 2018. The
January 29 to February 1, 2019 in-person meeting may also be webcast.
Please refer to the TSCA SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review for information on how to access the webcast. Please note that
for the in-person meeting, the webcast is a supplementary public
process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise resulting
in webcasting outages, the in-person meeting will continue as planned.
    Comments for the peer review: Submit your written comments for the
peer review, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2018-0604, 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: OPPT 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.
    Requests to present oral comments, and requests for special
accommodations. Submit requests to present oral comments or for special
accommodations, to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Todd Peterson, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may
be of interest to persons who are interested in risk evaluations of
chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Since other entities may also be interested in this risk evaluation,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
regulations.gov or via email. If your comments contain any information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special
instructions before submitting your comments.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your

comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

C. How may I participate in the preparatory virtual meeting?

    1. Register. Registration for the January 8, 2019, preparatory
virtual meeting is required. To participate by listening or making oral
comments during this meeting please visit https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review to register. Registration online will be confirmed by email
that will include the webcast meeting Adobe Connect link and audio
teleconference information.
    2. Submit written comments. Written comments for the preparatory
virtual meeting should be submitted, using the instructions in
ADDRESSES and Unit I.B., on or before January 7, 2019. Written comments
should focus on the scope and clarity of the draft charge questions and
the TSCA SACC will consider those comments during their discussions.
    3. Provide oral comments. To provide oral comments at the virtual
meeting, please follow the applicable instructions to register on or
before 12:00 p.m. (EST) on January 4, 2019. Oral comments to the TSCA
SACC panel during the preparatory virtual meeting are limited to
approximately 5 minutes due to the time limit of this meeting. Oral
comments should focus on the scope and clarity of the draft charge
questions and the panel will consider those comments during their
discussions.
    4. Participate in the virtual meeting. Follow the instructions in
Unit I.C.1. to register for the January 8, 2019 preparatory meeting.
Your confirmation will include the webcast meeting Adobe Connect link
and audio teleconference information.

D. How may I participate in the in-person meeting?

    You may participate in the in-person peer review meeting by
following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2018-0604 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
    1. Provide oral comments for the peer review. The Agency encourages
each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the
TSCA SACC during the in-person meeting to submit their request to the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before January
14, 2019, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to
present oral comments for the peer review will be accepted until the
date of the in-person meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the
Chair of the TSCA SACC may permit the presentation of oral comments at
the in-person meeting by interested persons who have not previously
requested time.
    Requests to make oral comments at the in-person meeting should
identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the
organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any
requirements for audiovisual equipment. Oral comments before the TSCA
SACC during the in-person meeting are limited to approximately 5
minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each
speaker should bring 30 copies of the comments and presentation for the
DFO to distribute to the TSCA SACC at the meeting. The TSCA SACC will
consider oral comments during their discussions.
    2. Provide written comments. Follow the instructions in ADDRESSES
and Unit I.B., to provide written comments on the draft risk
evaluation.
    3. Attend the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and on a
first-come basis.

II. Background

A. Purpose of the TSCA SACC

    The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) was established
by EPA in 2016 under the authority of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act, Public Law 114-182, 140 Stat. 448
(2016), and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The SACC supports activities under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other
applicable statutes. The SACC provides expert independent scientific
advice and recommendations to the EPA on the scientific and technical
aspects of risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention
measures and approaches for chemicals regulated under TSCA.
    The SACC is comprised of experts in: Toxicology; human health and
environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and related
sciences (e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, PBPK modeling,
computational toxicology, epidemiology, environmental fate, and
environmental engineering and sustainability). The SACC currently
consists of 26 members. When needed, the committee will be assisted in
their reviews by ad hoc participants with specific expertise in the
topics under consideration.

B. In-Person Meeting

    The focus of the TSCA SACC in-person meeting is to peer review the
Agency's draft risk evaluation of C.I. Pigment Violet 29, which was
developed under EPA's existing chemical substance process. C.I. Pigment
Violet 29 is an organic pigment that has a low solubility, low
volatility, is expected to be highly persistent, and has low
bioaccumulation potential in fish and other animals. The pigment is
utilized as an intermediate to create or adjust the color of other
pigments, as well as in commercial paints, coatings, plastics, and
rubber products.
    Under TSCA, the purpose of the risk evaluation is to determine
whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk to health or
the environment under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable
risk to a relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.
EPA released the draft risk evaluation for C.I. Pigment Violet 29 for
public review and comment on November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57473; FRL-9986-
45), and is submitting the same materials to the TSCA SACC for peer
review.
    After the peer review process, EPA will consider reviewer comments
and recommendations, and public comments, to finalize the risk
evaluation.
    Approximately one hour of the TSCA SACC's in-person meeting will be
closed to the public for the TSCA SACC to consider and discuss material
that has been claimed as CBI and provided to the Committee as
background for the draft risk evaluation for PV29. In accordance with
FACA section 10(d), and section (c)(4) of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, this approximately one-hour session of the
TSCA SACC will be closed to the public to avoid the potential
disclosure of CBI, which is protected from disclosure by statute. See
the Administrator's determination for a closed meeting available in the
docket identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0604 at http://www.regulations.gov.

C. TSCA SACC Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, and draft
charge/questions to the TSCA SACC are available on the TSCA SACC
website and in docket. In addition, the Agency will provide additional
background documents (e.g., a list of the SACC Members participating in
this meeting and the meeting agenda) as those

materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these
documents, and certain other related documents that might be available
at http://www.regulations.gov and the TSCA SACC website at https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review.
    TSCA SACC will prepare meeting minutes and final report summarizing
its recommendations to the Agency no later than 90 days after the
meeting. The meeting minutes and final report will be posted on the
TSCA SACC website and in the docket.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o) et seq.; 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 et
seq.

    Dated: November 21, 2018.
Stanley Barone, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-26084 Filed 11-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P