[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75107-75111]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29428]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0008; FRL-9918-90]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNalley, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Susan Lewis,
Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-
7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair

treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority
and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health
impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 2F8134. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0151). Syngenta Crop Protection
LLC., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-hlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on rapeseed, subgroup 20A
at 0.1 ppm. For plants, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC has submitted
practical analytical method (AG-575B) for detecting and measuring
levels of difenoconazole in or on food with a limit of quantitation
(LOQ) that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the
levels set in the proposed tolerances. Residues are qualified by liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). For livestock,
a practical analytical method (AG-544A) for detecting and measuring
levels of difenoconazole in or on cattle tissues and milk, and poultry
tissues and eggs, with an LOQ that allows monitoring of food with
residues at or above the levels set in the proposed tolerances.
Tolerances in meat, milk, poultry or eggs were established for
enforcement purposes. EPA is republishing this notice of availability.
    2. PP 3E8218. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0483). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
dimethomorph, in or on papaya at 1.5 parts per million (ppm). The
analytical method liquid chromatography with LC-MS/MS is available to
EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide residues.
Contact: RD.
    3. PP 3F8199. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0482). Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova,
Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510., requests
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide, flutriafol, in or on Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at
1.5 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 7.0 ppm; egg at 0.01
ppm; hog, liver at 0.05 ppm; hog, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.02
ppm; hog, muscle at 0.01 ppm; leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 3.0 ppm;
leafy greens, subgroup 4A, except head lettuce at 10 ppm; lettuce, head
at 1.5 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; radicchio at 1.5 ppm;
sorghum, grain, forage at 2.0 ppm; sorghum, grain, grain at 1.5 ppm;
and sorghum, grain, stover at 6.0 ppm. The gas chromatography-mass
selective detection (GC/MSD) is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical flutriafol. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 3F8213. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0530). Janssen PMP, Janssen
Pharmaceutica NV, 1125 Trenton-Harbourton Road, Titusville, NJ 08560,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the fungicide, pyrimethanil, in or on pomegranate (post-harvest) at 5.0
ppm. The high performance liquid chromatography with triple quadruple
mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical pyrimethanil. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 3F8224. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0285). Valent U.S.A. Corporation,
1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, requests to
establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
mandestrobin (S-2200), (2-[(2,5-dimethylphenoxy)methyl]-[alpha]-
methoxy-N-methyl-benzeneacetamide) in or on small fruit vine climbing
except fuzzy kiwifruit crop subgroup 13-07F, fruit at 5 ppm; juice at 7
ppm and dried fruit at 10 ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, fruit
at 3 ppm; and rapeseed crop subgroup 20A, seed at 0.6 ppm. An
independently validated analytical method has been submitted for
analyzing parent S-2200 residues with appropriate sensitivity in all
crop commodities for which tolerances are being request. Contact: RD.
    6. PP 4E8232. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0695). Sumitomo Chemical Company,
LTD., 27-1 Shinkawa 2 Chrome, Chuo-Ku, Tokyo 104-8260, Japan, requests
to establish an import tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide, diethofencarb (isopropyl 3,4-diethoxycarbanilate), in or on
banana at 0.09 ppm. The LC-MS/MS analytical method is used to measure
and evaluate the chemical diethofencarb. Contact: RD.
    7. PP 4E8241. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0232). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the insecticide, novaluron, (N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide),
in or on avocado at 0.60 ppm; carrot at 0.05 ppm; bean at 0.60 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
2.0 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 8.0 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at
1.9 ppm; and plum subgroup 12-12C at 1.9 ppm. The analytical method:
Gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD) and a high
performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method (HPLC/UV) with the
lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for the subject commodities is
0.05 ppm is used to measure and evaluate the novaluron chemical,
residue(s). Contact: RD.

    8. PP 4E8248. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0284). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of S-metolachlor in or on the raw agricultural commodity
lettuce at 1.5 parts per million (ppm); vegetable, cucurbit group 9 at
0.50 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, except tabasco pepper at
0.10 ppm; low growing berry subgroup 13-07G except cranberry at 0.40
ppm; and sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.50 ppm and the concurrent deletion
of the existing tolerances for okra; vegetable, fruiting, group 8
except tabasco pepper; cucumber; melon subgroup 9A; pumpkin; squash,
winter; and sunflower, seed. A gas chromatography-nitrogen phosphorus
detection (GC/NPD) method has been submitted to the Agency for
determining residues in/on crop commodities and is published in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II, Method I. A GC/MSD method
has been submitted to the Agency for determining residues in livestock
commodities and is published in PAM Vol. II, Method II. These methods
determine residues of S-metolachlor and its metabolites as either CGA-
37913 or CGA-49751 following acid hydrolysis. Contact: RD.
    9. PP 4E8250. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014- 0249). Taminco US Inc., Two Windsor
Plaza, Suite 411, 7540 Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
thiram, in or on avocado at 8 ppm. The ALS Laboratory Group method MS
133.02 is used to measure and evaluate the chemical thiram (as
CS2). Contact: RD.
    10. PP 4E8272. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540 requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of fludioxonil [4-(2, 2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1-H-
pyrrole-3-carbonitrile] in or on the raw agricultural commodity carrot
at 7.0 ppm. The anaylytical method has passed an Agency petition method
validation for several commodities, and is currently the enforcement
method for fludioxonil. This method has also been forwarded to the Food
and Drug Administration for inclusion into PAM II. An extensive
database of method validation data using this method on various crop
commodities is available. Contact: RD.
    11. PP 4E8282. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0397). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the herbicide, pendimethalin, [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-
dinitrobenzenamine], and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-
methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on the raw agricultural commodities:
Caneberry, sub-group 13-07A at 0.10 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at
0.10 ppm and by amending the established tolerance in or on the raw
agricultural commodities of nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.10 ppm. The
analytical method is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean
up, and quantitation by GC. The method has a LOQ of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. Contact: RD.
    12. PP 4E8295. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0552). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of esfenvalerate, ((S)-cyano-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (S)-4-
chloro-alpha-(1-methylethyl) benzeneacetate in or on the oilseed crop
group 20 at 0.5 ppm. The petitioner also requests that upon approval of
the tolerance in this petition summary that the existing tolerances for
cotton, undelinted seed and sunflower, seed be removed as unnecessary.
There is a practical analytical method utilizing electron-capture gas
chromatography with nitrogen phosphorous detection available for
enforcement with a limit of detection that allows monitoring food with
residues at or above tolerance levels. The limit of detection for
updated method is the same as that of the current PAM II, which is 0.01
ppm. Contact: RD.
    13. PP 4E8296. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013]-0151). Dragonberry Produce/YW
International, 386 South Sequoia Parkway, Canby, Oregon 97013, requests
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.475 for residues of the
fungicide, difenoconazole, in or on imported dragonfruit at 1.5 ppm.
The analytical methods AG-575B for crops and AM-544A for livestock
commodities are used to measure and evaluate the chemical
difenoconazole residues. Contact: RD.
    14. PP 4F8301. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0680). Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road; Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, pronamide
(propyzamide) and its metabolite containing the 3,5-dichlorobenzoyl
moiety calculated as 3,5-dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)
benzamide, in or on lettuce, leaf at 1.0 part per million (ppm). The
gas chromatography using electron capture detection method is used to
measure and evaluate the chemical pronamide and its metabolite.
Contact: RD.
    15. PP 4E8302. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0590). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540 requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of pyrimethanil (4,6-dimethyl-N- phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine) in
or on the raw agricultural commodities cucumber at 1.5 ppm; orange
subgroup 10-10A at 10 ppm; lemon subgroup 10-10B at 11 ppm; grapefruit
subgroup 10-10C at 10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 14 ppm; fruit,
stone, group 12-12 at 10 ppm; and tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.5 ppm. The
petitioner also requests that upon approval of the tolerances in this
petition summary, that the tolerances for fruit, citrus, group 10
except lemon, postharvest; lemon, preharvest and postharvest; fruit,
pome, group 11 (pre-harvest and post-harvest); fruit, stone, group 12;
and tomato be removed as unnecessary. The plant metabolism studies
demonstrated that analysis for the parent compound, pyrimethanil is
sufficient to enable the assessment of the relevant residues in crop
commodities. Pyrimethanil was extracted from cucumbers by
homogenization with acetone. After clean-up, an aliquot of the extract
was diluted with a mixture of acetonitrile and water with subsequent
residue determination by HPLC-MS/MS. The method allows the detection
and measurement of residues in or on agricultural commodities at or
above the proposed tolerance level. Contact: RD.
    16. PP 4F8281. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
dimethomorph, in or on strawberry at 1.0 ppm. The analytical method LC-
MS/MS is available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide residues. Contact: RD.
    17. PP 4F8286. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0607). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 requests to establish in 40 CFR
part 180 for residues of the insecticide metaflumizone ((E and Z
isomers; 2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]-
N-[4-(trifluormethoxy)phenyl]hydrazinecarboxamide)) (CAS No. 139968-49-
3) and its metabolite 4-{2-oxo-2-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethyl{time} -benzonitrile in or on the raw
agricultural commodity citrus fruit

group 10-10 at 0.04 ppm; pome fruit group 11-10 at 0.04 ppm; stone
fruit group 12-12 at 0.04 ppm; and tree nut group 14-12 at 0.04 ppm.
BASF Analytical Method No. 531/0 was developed to determine residues of
metaflumizone and its metabolites M320I04 and M320I23 in crop matrices.
In this method, residues of metaflumizone are extracted from plant
matrices with methanol/water (70:30; v/v) and then partitioned into
dichloromethane. For oily matrices, the residues are extracted with a
mixture of isohexane/acetonitrile (1:1; v/v). The final determination
of metaflumizone and its metabolites is performed by LC/MS/MS. Contact:
RD.

Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 3F8199. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0482). Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova,
Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510, requests
to amend 40 CFR 180.629 by removing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide, flutriafol in or on the raw agricultural commodity cotton,
meal at 0.5 ppm; cotton, refined oil at 0.5 ppm; hog, meat byproducts
at 0.02 ppm. The GC/MSD is used to measure and evaluate the chemical
flutriafol. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 3F8199. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0482). Cheminova A/S, c/o Cheminova,
Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209-2510, requests
to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.629 for residues of the
fungicide, flutriafol in or on the raw agricultural commodity cotton,
gin byproducts to 0.5 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed to 0.5 ppm; and
grain, aspirated fractions to 6.0 ppm. The GC/MSD is used to measure
and evaluate the chemical flutriafol. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 4E8241. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0232). IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon approval of petitioned-for
tolerances listed under ``New Tolerances'', to remove tolerances in 40
CFR 180.598 for residues of the insecticide, novaluron, N-[[[3-chloro-
4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2- (trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy] phenyl]amino]
carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide), in or on bean, succulent, snap at
0.60 ppm; bean, dry, seed at 0.30 ppm; cherry at 8.0 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 2.0 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry at 1.9 ppm;
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.0 ppm; cocona at 1.0 ppm; African
eggplant at 1.0 ppm; pea eggplant at 1.0 ppm; scarlet eggplant at 1.0
ppm; goji berry at 1.0 ppm; garden huckleberry at 1.0 ppm, martynia at
1.0 ppm, naranjilla at 1.0 ppm, okra at 1.0 ppm, roselle at 1.0 ppm;
sunberry at 1.0 ppm; bush tomato at 1.0 ppm; currant tomato at 1.0 ppm;
and tree tomato at 1.0 ppm. The analytical method: Gas chromatography/
electron capture detector (GC/ECD) and a HPLC/UV is used to measure and
evaluate novaluron chemical residues. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 4E8268. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014- 0632). Taminco US Inc., Two Windsor
Plaza, Suite 411, 7540 Windsor Drive, Allentown, PA 18195, requests to
amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.132 for residues of the fungicide
thiram, in or on banana at 0.8 ppm. The analytical method #Meth-100,
revision #4 is used to measure and evaluate the chemical thiram (as
CS2). Contact: RD.
    5. PP 4E8272. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0496). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to update an existing crop group in 40 CFR 180.516
for residues of fludioxonil [4-(2, 2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1-
H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile], by changing ``fruit, stone, group 12 at 5.0
ppm'' to ``fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5.0 ppm.'' The anaylytical
method has passed an Agency petition method validation for several
commodities, and is currently the enforcement method for fludioxonil.
This method has also been forwarded to the Food and Drug Administration
for inclusion into PAM II. An extensive database of method validation
data using this method on various crop commodities is available.
Contact: RD.
    6. PP 4E8282. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0397). IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes upon approval of petitioned-for
tolerances listed under ``New Tolerances'', to remove tolerances in 40
CFR 180.361 for residues of the herbicide, pendimethalin, N-(1-
ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6 dinitrobenzenamine, and its metabolite,
4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, in or on
method nut, tree, group 14 at 0.1 ppm; pistachio at 0.1 ppm and
juneberry at -0.1 ppm. The analytical method is aqueous organic solvent
extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC. The method has a
LOQ of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. Contact:
RD.
    7. PP 4E8302. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0590). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests that the existing tolerance for ``onion, bulb,
subgroup 3-07A'' be changed from 2.0 ppm to 0.20 ppm. The plant
metabolism studies demonstrated that analysis for the parent compound,
pyrimethanil is sufficient to enable the assessment of the relevant
residues in crop commodities. Pyrimethanil was extracted from cucumbers
by homogenization with acetone. After clean-up, an aliquot of the
extract was diluted with a mixture of acetonitrile and water with
subsequent residue determination by HPLC-MS/MS. The method allows the
detection and measurement of residues in or on agricultural commodities
at or above the proposed tolerance level. Contact: RD.
    8. PP 4F8270. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0638). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.666 for residues of the fungicide,
fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F), 1 H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide,3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-,
its metabolites, and degradates, in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 20
ppm and cotton undelinted seed at 0.3 ppm. LC/MS/MS method is available
as an enforcement method. This method uses reversed-phase HPLC with
gradient elution, and includes 2 ion transitions to be monitored for
the parent fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) plus metabolites M700F008,
M700F048. Contact: RD.
    9. PP 4F8281. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0531). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27709, requests to amend
40 CFR 180.493 by removing tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
dimethomorph (BAS 550 F) [(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]-morpholine, its metabolites and
degradates in or on the raw agricultural commodity lettuce, head at 10
ppm and lettuce, leaf at 10 ppm. The analytical method LC-MS/MS is
available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide
residues. Contact: RD.
    10. PP 4F8286. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0607). BASF Corporation, P.O. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 requests to amend 40 CFR
180.657 by removing the established tolerances for residues of the
insecticide metaflumizone ((E and Z isomers; 2-[2-(4-cyanophenyl)-1-[3-
(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene]-N-[4-
(trifluormethoxy)phenyl]hydrazinecarboxamide)) (CAS No. 139968-49-3)
and its metabolite 4-{2-oxo-2-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethyl{time} -
benzonitrile in or on fruit, citrus group 10 at 0.04 ppm and nut, tree,
group 14 at 0.04 ppm, upon establishment of the proposed tolerances
listed under the ``New Tolerances'' paragraph for PP 4F8286. Contact:
RD.
    11. PP 4F8293. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0613). United Phosphorus, Inc., 630
Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of Prussia, PA 19406, requests
to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.293

for residues of the herbicide, endothall, in or on cattle, fat from
0.01 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, kidney from 0.20 to 0.06 ppm; cattle, liver
from 0.10 to 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat from 0.03 to 0.05 ppm; goat, fat
from 0.005 to 0.05 ppm; goat, kidney from 0.15 to 0.06 ppm; goat, meat
from 0.015 to 0.05 ppm; hog, fat from 0.005 to 0.05 ppm; hog, kidney
from 0.10 to 0.06 ppm; hog, meat from 0.01 to 0.05 ppm; milk from 0.03
to 0.01 ppm; poultry, fat from 0.015 to 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat from
0.015 to 0.05 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts from 0.2 to 0.05 ppm;
sheep, fat from 0.005 to 0.05 ppm; sheep, kidney from 0.15 to 0.06 ppm;
and sheep, meat from 0.015 to 0.05 ppm. The analytical method # KP-
245R0 using HPLC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical
endothall. Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemption

    1. PP 3F8221. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0560). SciReg International on
behalf of Andermatt Biocontrol AG., Stahlermatten 6 CH-6146,
Grossdietwil, Switzerland, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide,
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42, in or on all food commodities.
The pesticide in intended to control soil borne diseases. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42 is virtually non-toxic and is not
pathogenic. Andermatt Biocontrol AG is, therefore, submitting a
petition to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
and an analytical method is not required. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 4F8251. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W.
Irving St., Boise, IN 83706, requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the plant incorporated
protectant (PIP), Potato Late Blight Resistance Gene (also known as
Rpi-vnt1), in or on potato. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because the petitioner is seeking an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: BPPD.
    3. PP 4F8275. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0454). Monsanto Company, 800 North
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105
protein, in or on soybean. The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because the petitioner is seeking an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: BPPD.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-29428 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44014-44017]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18079]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0114; FRL-9931-03-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia;
Removal of Clean Fuel Fleet Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
were submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on January 22, 2015, for
the purpose of moving the Clean Fuel Fleet Program (CFFP) from the
active portion of the Georgia SIP to the contingency measures portion
of the maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA has preliminarily
determined that Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision regarding the
CFFP is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0114, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0114'' Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0114. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or

viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background for Atlanta's Air Quality Status Related to the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the following
counties in and around the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area as a
serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area''):
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale.\1\ See 56 FR 56694.
The nonattainment designation was based on the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone
Area's design value for the 1987-1989 three-year period. The
``serious'' classification triggered various statutory requirements for
the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area, including the requirement pursuant to
section 182(c)(4) of the CAA for the Area to adopt measures necessary
to ensure the effectiveness of the applicable provisions of the CFFP
described below in section II of this document. EPA redesignated the
Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective June 14, 2005.2 3 See 70 FR 34660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 26, 2003 (effective January 1, 2004), the
Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area was reclassified to ``severe'' for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS because the Area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS by its attainment date of November 15, 1999. See 68 FR 55469.
    \2\ On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the following 20 counties
in and around metropolitan Atlanta as a marginal nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the
``Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area''): Barrow, Bartow, Carroll,
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding,
and Walton. See 69 FR 23858. Subsequently, EPA reclassified this
same area as a moderate nonattainment area on March 6, 2008, because
the Area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the
required attainment date of June 15, 2007. See 73 FR 12013.
Subsequently, the area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and
on December 2, 2013, EPA redesignated the area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 72040.
    \3\ On May 21, 2012, EPA published a final rule designating the
following 15 counties in and around metropolitan Atlanta as a
marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Bartow,
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background for the CFFP

    The CFFP is addressed in Title II, part C of the CAA. See CAA
sections 241-250. Congress added Part C, entitled ``Clean Fuel
Vehicles,'' to the CAA to establish two programs: A clean-fuel vehicle
pilot program in the State of California (the California Pilot Test
Program), and a CFFP in certain ozone and carbon monoxide (CO)
nonattainment areas. EPA promulgated regulations for the CFFP at 40 CFR
part 88, subpart C on March 1, 1993. See 58 FR 11888. Under section 246
of the CAA, certain states were required to adopt and submit to EPA a
SIP revision containing a CFFP for ozone nonattainment areas with a
1980 population greater than 250,000 that were classified as serious,
severe, or extreme.
    A state's CFFP SIP revision must require fleet operators with 10 or
more centrally-fueled vehicles or vehicles capable of being centrally-
fueled to include a specified percentage of clean-fuel vehicles in
their purchases each year and to meet additional CAA requirements,
including the requirement that covered fleet operators must operate the
Clean Fuel Vehicles (CFVs) in covered nonattainment areas on a clean
alternative fuel, defined as a fuel on which the vehicle meets EPA's
CFV standards. EPA promulgated emission standards for CFVs on September
30, 1994. See 59 FR 50042.
    On May 2, 1994, the State of Georgia submitted a SIP revision to
address the CFFP requirements for the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area. EPA
approved that SIP revision, containing Georgia's CFFP rules (Georgia
Rules 391-3-22-.01 through .11, ``Clean Fleet Rules'') in a document
published on May 2, 1994. See 60 FR 66149. Georgia's rules require
fleets of 10 or more vehicles that are centrally fueled or capable of
being centrally fueled and operated in the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area to
include in their vehicle purchases a certain percentage of CFVs. A CFV
is one which meets any one of the exhaust emission standards for the
following vehicle categories: Low emission vehicles (LEV), ultra low
emission vehicles (ULEV), and zero emission vehicles (ZEV).
    Under the CAA and Federal CFFP regulations, vehicles weighing
26,000 pounds (lbs) or less count towards the requirement, and the CFFP
purchase requirements started with 1998 model year vehicles under the
following phase-in schedule for light-duty vehicles and trucks under
6,000 lbs. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and light-duty trucks
between 6,000 and 8,500 lbs. GVWR: 30 percent CFV in Model Year 1998,
50 percent CFV in Model Year 1999, and 70 percent CFV in Model Year
2000 and after. The phase-in schedule for heavy-duty vehicles weighing
above 8,500 lbs but less than 26,001 lbs. GVWR was: 50 percent CFV in
Model Year 1998, 50 percent CFV in Model Year 1999, and 50 percent CFV
in Model Year 2000 and after. The following vehicles are exempted from
these requirements: Motor vehicles for lease or rental to the general
public, dealer demonstration vehicles that are used solely for the
purpose of promoting motor vehicle sales, emergency vehicles, law
enforcement vehicles, nonroad vehicles (farm and construction
vehicles), vehicles garaged at a personal residence and not being
centrally fueled, and vehicles used for motor vehicle manufacturer
product evaluations and tests.

III. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    On January 22, 2015, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to EPA with a
request to move Georgia's CFFP rules (Georgia Rules 391-3-22-.01
through .11) from the active portion of the Georgia SIP to the
contingency measure portion of the ozone maintenance plan for the
Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS.\4\ EPA incorporated this maintenance plan into the SIP in
a final action published on December 2, 2013. See 78 FR 72040. In order
for EPA to approve Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision, the
revision must satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of EPA's
implementation rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS \5\ and CAA
section 110(l). More discussion on EPA's evaluation of these
requirements in relation to Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision is
provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See footnote 2 for a description of this Area.
    \5\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consideration of Anti-Backsliding Requirements

    To support Georgia's request for EPA to move the CFFP from the
active portion of the Georgia SIP to the contingency measure portion of
the SIP, the State must demonstrate that the requested change is in
compliance with EPA's anti-backsliding requirements for ozone. The
anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS were
originally promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X. However, with the
promulgation of the implementation rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA moved these requirements to 40 CFR part 50, subpart AA and
expanded the provisions to address anti-backsliding requirements for
the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in relation to compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The CFFP is one of the ``applicable requirements'' for anti-
backsliding purposes under EPA's implementation rules for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS ``to the extent such requirements apply to the area
pursuant to its classification under CAA section 181(a)(1) for the 1-
hour NAAQS or 40 CFR 51.902 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at the time
of revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.'' See 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked on April 6, 2015. As mentioned
above, the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area was redesignated to attainment
effective June 14, 2005, the CFFP requirements apply to the Atlanta 1-
Hour Ozone Area given its former status as a serious nonattainment
area, the 1997 Atlanta 8-hour Ozone Area was redesignated to attainment
effective January 2, 2014, and fifteen counties in and around
metropolitan Atlanta are currently in nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.\6\ Thus, the CFFP is an applicable requirement, and the
anti-backsliding requirements under 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(2) in EPA's
implementation rules for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS apply to the
Atlanta Area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1105(a)(2), a state may request
that an applicable requirement under Sec.  51.1100(o) be moved to the
list of maintenance plan contingency measures for the area in the
state's implementation plan so long as compliance with CAA section
110(l) and CAA section 193 (if applicable) is demonstrated.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See footnotes 2 and 3 for descriptions of the 1997 and 2008
ozone nonattainment areas, respectively.
    \7\ Section 193 is a general savings clause pertaining to
regulations, standards, rules, notices, orders, and guidance
promulgated or issued prior to November 15, 1990. The CFFP was
effective on May 22, 1994. Therefore, section 193 is not relevant to
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia's January 22,
2014, SIP revision satisfies the anti-backsliding requirements of EPA's
ozone implementation rules and the CAA section 110(l) requirements
(discussed in detail below) and to move Georgia Rules 391-3-22-.01
through .11 from the active portion of the Georgia SIP to the
contingency measures portion of Georgia's maintenance plan in the SIP
for the 1997 Atlanta 8-hour Ozone Area.

B. Consideration of Section 110(l) Requirements

    As noted above, the State must demonstrate that the requested
change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires
that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
Act.
    EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in
effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the
EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on
any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed
SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP
revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.
    In 2000, EPA promulgated new tailpipe emissions standards (commonly
referred to as the ``Tier 2 Rule'') for all passenger vehicles,
including sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, vans, and pick-up
trucks. See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). This regulation marked the
first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks--even the largest
passenger vehicles--were subject to the same national pollution
standards as cars. The new tailpipe standards were set at an average
standard of 0.07 grams per mile (gpm) for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) for all classes of passenger vehicles beginning in
2004-2007. For the heaviest light-duty trucks, the program provided a
three step approach to reducing emissions. First, in 2004, EPA
implemented standards not to exceed 0.6 gpm--a more than 60 percent
reduction from current standards. Second, to ensure further progress,
these vehicles were required to achieve an interim standard of 0.2 gpm
phased-in between 2004-2007, an 80 percent reduction from current
standards. Third, in the final step, half of these vehicles were
required to meet the 0.07 standard in 2008, and the remaining were
required to comply in 2009. Vehicles weighing between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds had the option to take advantage of additional flexibilities
during the 2004 to 2008 interim period.
    In 2001, EPA promulgated new tailpipe emissions standards (commonly
referred to as the ``Heavy Duty Vehicle Rule'') for heavy duty trucks
and buses.\8\ See 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001). In this regulation,
EPA finalized a PM emissions standard for new heavy-duty engines of
0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), to take full effect
for diesels in the 2007 model year. EPA also finalized standards for
NOX and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and
0.14 g/bhp-hr, respectively. These NOX and NMHC standards
were phased in together between 2007 and 2010, for diesel engines. The
phase-in was based on a percent-of-sales: 50 percent from 2007 to 2009
and 100 percent in 2010. Gasoline engines were subject to these
standards based on a phase-in requiring 50 percent compliance in the
2008 model year and 100 percent compliance in the 2009 model year. Both
of the standards discussed above (Tier 2 Rule and Heavy Duty Vehicle
Rule) reduce tailpipe emission significantly over the LEV standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Heavy Duty Vehicle Rule builds upon the ``phase 1
program'' finalized on October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59896), that affirmed
the 50 percent reduction in NOX emissions from 2004 model
year highway diesel engines set in 1997 (62 FR 54693, October 21,
1997) and set new emission standards for heavy-duty gasoline fueled
engines and vehicles for 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued a memorandum on April 17, 2006, noting that after the
CFFP requirement became law, EPA promulgated new vehicle emission
standards (e.g., Tier 2 Rule and heavy-duty engine standards) that are
generally more stringent, or equivalent to, the CFV emission standards
for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and

heavy-duty vehicles and engines.\9\ The memorandum also stated that
``[t]o meet the requirements of the Clean Fuel Fleet Program fleet
managers can be assured that vehicles and engines certified to current
Part 86 emission standards, which EPA has determined to be as or more
stringent than corresponding CFV emission standards per the attached
EPA Dear Manufacturer Letter meet the CFV emission standards and the
CFFP requirements as defined in CFR part 88.'' Further reductions from
these same vehicles will be achieved by EPA's newly promulgated Tier 3
emission standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Memorandum from Leila H. Cook, EPA Transportation & Regional
Programs Division, to Air Program Managers re: Clean Fuel Fleet
Program Requirements (April 17, 2006). This memorandum superseded a
July 2, 2004, memorandum from Leila H. Cook noting that the Tier 2
standards are equivalent to or cleaner than earlier emission levels
mandated by the CFFP. These memoranda are included with the State's
SIP revision in the docket for this proposed action.
    \10\ ``Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3
Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards.'' See 79 FR 23414 (April
28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its SIP submission, GA EPD provided an independent analysis of
the expected emission benefits of Tier 2 and heavy-duty engine
standards over LEV standards.\11\ According to GA EPD's analysis, Tier
2 NOX standards have a benefit over LEV ranging from 0.09
gpm to 0.99 gpm on a per vehicle basis. With regard to the heavy-duty
engine standards, GA EPD indicates that there is a benefit of 1.4
grams/brake-horse power per hour for the combination of non-methane
hydrocarbons and NOX on a per vehicle basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Table 1 of the Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has preliminarily determined that the removal of the Georgia
CFFP will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress,
or any other applicable requirement of the Act because the emission
reductions that were generated by Georgia's CFFP have been overtaken by
EPA's Tier 2 Rule and heavy-duty emissions standards. As discussed
above, the vehicle emissions standards referenced in EPA's April 17,
2006 memorandum have been fully implemented, thus ensuring that all new
vehicle fleet purchases meet CFV standards.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In its January 22, 2015, SIP revision, GA EPD analyzed the
annual reports submitted by the fleets for the model years 2001-2004
and 2006 to determine the number of used vehicles purchased and the
range of the model years. GA EPD determined that 98 percent of the
vehicles purchased are new. Only 2 percent of vehicles are purchased
as used. Out of the used vehicles purchased, 80 percent are 2004 and
newer models. As a result, only 0.4 percent of vehicles purchased
are older than the 2004 model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP
revision and move Georgia's CFFP rules (Georgia Rules 391-3-22-.01
through .11) from the active portion of Georgia SIP to the contingency
measures portion of Georgia's maintenance plan in the SIP for the 1997
Atlanta 8-hour Ozone Area. EPA is proposing this approval because the
Agency has made the preliminarily determination that Georgia's January
22, 2015, SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and EPA's regulations
and guidance.

V. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 14, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-18079 Filed 7-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333; FRL-         ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Norfolk
Southern Corporation

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia removing a nitrogen oxide
(NOx) reasonably available control technology (RACT) permit from the
Virginia SIP for sources located at the Norfolk Southern Railway
Company—East End Shops’ facility located in Roanoke Virginia, which
have permanently shut down.  This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date 30 days
from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333.  All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov website.  Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30340), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia.  The NPR proposed
approval of the removal of a NOx RACT permit from the Virginia SIP for
sources located at the Norfolk Southern Railway Company—East End
Shops’ facility, in Roanoke, Virginia which have permanently shut
down.  The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on February 11, 2008.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

On February 11, 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a revision
to its SIP which requested the removal of NOx RACT permit No. 20468,
issued to the Norfolk Southern Railway Company--East End Shops’
facility in Roanoke, Virginia, from the Virginia SIP.  Since the time of
EPA’s approval of the NOx RACT requirements for NOx RACT-subject
sources at this facility (70 FR 21621, April 27, 2005), many sources,
including those that had previously been subject to the NOx RACT
requirements of 9 VAC 5-40 via permit No. 20468, were permanently shut
down.  As a result, the VADEQ requested that EPA remove NOx RACT permit
No. 20468 from the Virginia SIP since it was no longer applicable.  The
SIP revision consisted of mutual shut down agreements between the VADEQ
and the Norfolk Southern Railway Company—East End Shops’ facility
located in Roanoke, Virginia.  The volatile organic compound (VOC) and
NOx RACT control regulations of Chapter 40 had originally become
applicable in the Roanoke area because of its participation in the EPA
Early Action Compact (EAC) program for the Western Virginia Emissions
Control Area.

The sources previously subject to the NOx RACT requirements of permit
No. 20468 which have permanently shut down include the following units:
Unit ID # 8-01, B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit
ID # 8-02, B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #
8-03, B & W Stirling coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID # 8-04,
Zurn Energy coal-fired spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID # 43-03, 15
open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces; and Unit ID # 51-13/14, one
13-ton capacity electric arc furnace.

Other specific requirements of the removal of the NOx RACT permit for
Norfolk Southern Railway Company—East End Shops’ facility, and the
rationale for EPA's action are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here.  No public comments were received on the NPR.

III.  General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virgina

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for
voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity.  The
legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties
either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for
which the privilege is claimed.  Virginia's legislation also provides,
subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of
environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations
pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses
such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate
measures to remedy the violations.  Virginia's Voluntary Environmental
Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege
that protects from disclosure documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary
environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents
or information (1) that are generated or developed before the
commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by law.

On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney
General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege law, Va.
Code Sec. 10.1-1198,  precludes granting a privilege to documents and
information “required by law,” including documents and information
“required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization
or approval,” since Virginia must (enforce Federally authorized
environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their
Federal counterparts. . . .”   The opinion concludes that
“[r]egarding ( 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information
needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs
could not be privileged because such documents and information are
essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to
maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.”

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,”  any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil
penalty.  The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that
the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of
any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be
afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because
granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which
is one of the criteria for immunity.”  Therefore, EPA has determined
that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal
requirements.  In any event, because EPA has also determined that a
state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement
and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may
at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example,
sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or
prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement
effort.  In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean
Air Act is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or
immunity law.

IV.  Final Action

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Virginia’s SIP revision,
submitted on February 11, 2008, requesting the removal of NOx RACT
permit No. 20468, issued on December 22, 2004, to the Norfolk Southern
Railway Company—East End Shops’ facility, in Roanoke, Virginia from
the Virginia SIP.  EPA is taking this final action because the sources
that were previously subject to the NOx RACT requirements of this
permit, have permanently shut down.  EPA is approving this action with
the understanding that no future operation of this equipment shall occur
until the owner has obtained the applicable permits pursuant to 9 VAC 5
Chapter 80 of Virginia’s regulations.  Upon EPA’s approval of the
Commonwealth’s request, the VADEQ will notify the Norfolk Southern
Corporation of EPA’s approval and the permit repeal will become
effective 30 days later.

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 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
Clean Air Act; 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

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.  Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.  5 U.S.C. 804(3).  Because this is a
rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule
report regarding this action under section 801.

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  This action, pertaining to the removal of the Norfolk
Southern Railway Company—East End Shops’ NOx RACT permit, 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

								/s/

                        ___________________________

Dated:     August 29, 2008                       		Donald S. Welsh,
                           								Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

1.  The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV ( Virginia

2. In ( 52.2420, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
entry for Norfolk Southern Railway Company—East End Shops.

 PAGE

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35372]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1961-000]

Duke Energy Zimmer, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Duke Energy Zimmer, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 7, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14355 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 27484]
[DOCID:fr11my06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2150]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

May 5, 2006.
    On April 30, 2004, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., licensee for the Baker
River Hydroelectric Project, filed an application for a new or
subsequent license pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the
Commission's regulations thereunder. The Baker River Project is located
on the Baker River in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, Washington.
    The license for Project No. 2150 was issued for a period ending
April 30, 2006. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2150 is issued to
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. for a period effective May 1, 2006 through
April 30, 2007, or until the issuance of a new license for the project
or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If issuance
of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or
before April 30, 2007, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR
16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise. If the project is
not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that Puget
Sound Energy, Inc., is authorized to continue operation of the Baker
River Project until such time as the Commission acts on its application
for a subsequent license.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7197 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P