[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7970-7978]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02718]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0062; FRL-9504-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; NC; Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and Rocky Mount Areas Limited Maintenance
Plans for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), in
a letter dated September 22, 2020. The SIP revisions include the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Limited
Maintenance Plans (LMPs) for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
(GSMNP), Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (Triangle) and Rocky Mount, North
Carolina Areas (collectively, ``Areas''). EPA is proposing to approve
the LMPs for the Areas because each LMP provides for the maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within each of the Areas through the end of
the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period. The effect of
this action would be to make certain commitments related to maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Areas federally-enforceable as
part of the North Carolina SIP.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before March 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0062 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianna Myers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9207. Ms. Myers can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. North Carolina's SIP Submittals
IV. EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's SIP Submittals
    A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Plan
    E. Conclusion
V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, adopted and submitted by NCDAQ as revisions to the North
Carolina SIP on September 22, 2020. On April 15, 2004, EPA published a
final rule designating the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ Subsequently, EPA
approved maintenance plans and redesignated the Triangle, GSMNP, and
Rocky Mount Areas attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 69 FR 23857.
    \2\ See 72 FR 72948 (December 26, 2007), 74 FR 63995 (December
7, 2009), and 71 FR 64891 (November 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Areas' LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by NCDAQ
on September 22, 2020, are designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS within the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas through the end
of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period beyond
redesignation. EPA is proposing to approve the plans because they meet
all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A.
    As a general matter, the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS rely on the same control measures and
contingency provisions to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during
the second 10-year portion of each area's maintenance period as the
maintenance plans submitted by NCDAQ for the first 10-year period.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma and other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010, and 75 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18,
1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\4\ EPA set the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS would be more
protective of human health, especially in children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the GSMNP,
Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The GSMNP nonattainment area included portions of Haywood and
Swain Counties. The Triangle nonattainment area included Durham,
Franklin, Granville, Johnston, Orange, Person and Wake Counties in
their entirety and the Townships of Baldwin, Center, New Hope and
Williams in Chatham County. The Rocky Mount nonattainment area included
Edgecombe and Nash Counties in their entirety. The designations became
effective on June 15, 2004.\5\ Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA
designated areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA designated the counties and townships that
comprised the Areas as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. These designations became effective on July 20, 2012.\6\
In addition, on November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The counties and townships that comprised the Areas
were designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, with an effective date on January 16, 2018.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 69 FR 23858.
    \6\ See 77 FR 30088.
    \7\ See 82 FR 54232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state may submit a request to redesignate a nonattainment area
that is attaining a NAAQS, and, if the area has met other required
criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may approve
the area's redesignation to attainment.\8\ One of the criteria for

redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. At the end of the eighth year after the effective date of
redesignation, the state must also submit a second maintenance plan to
ensure ongoing maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years
pursuant to CAA section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20
years after redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\9\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified
in three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that
the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using
information such as the area's design value \10\ being well below the
standard and the area having a historically stable design value.\11\
EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined
demonstration as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \11\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can be
found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs
have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS.
As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must
still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states
seeking an LMP must still submit their section 175A maintenance plan as
a revision to their SIP, with all attendant notice and comment
procedures. While the LMP guidance memoranda were originally written
with respect to certain NAAQS,\12\ EPA has extended the LMP
interpretation of section 175A to other NAAQS and pollutants not
specifically covered by the previous guidance memos.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
    \13\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of second
ten-year LMP for Grant County 1971 SO2 maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve the Areas' LMPs for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, because the State has made a showing,
consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance, that the Areas' ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable and that it has met the other maintenance plan
requirements. NCDAQ has submitted the LMPs for the GSMNP, Triangle and
Rocky Mount 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance areas to fulfill the
second maintenance plan requirement in the Act. EPA's evaluation of the
Areas' LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is presented below.
    On July 24, 2009, NCDAQ submitted to EPA a request to redesignate
the GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
submittal included a plan to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the GSMNP Area through 2020 as a revision to the North
Carolina SIP. EPA approved the GSMNP Maintenance Plan and the State's
request to redesignate the GSMNP Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS effective January 6, 2010.\14\ On June 7, 2007, NCDAQ
submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Triangle Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal included a
plan to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Triangle Area through 2017 as a revision to the North Carolina SIP. EPA
approved the Triangle Maintenance Plan and the State's request to
redesignate the Triangle Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS effective December 26, 2007.\15\ On June 19, 2006, NCDAQ
submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Rocky Mount Area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This submittal included a
plan to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Rocky Mount Area through 2017 as a revision to the North Carolina SIP.
EPA approved the Rocky Mount Maintenance Plan and the State's request
to redesignate the Rocky Mount Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS effective January 5, 2007.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 74 FR 63995 (December 7, 2009).
    \15\ See 72 FR 72948 (December 26, 2007).
    \16\ See 71 FR 64891 (November 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that
one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated
to attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the revocation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, second maintenance plans were not
required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that had been
redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance
areas and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. South
Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with these ``orphan
maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS must submit
maintenance plans for the second maintenance period. Accordingly, on
September 22, 2020, North Carolina submitted a second maintenance plan
for the GSMNP,

Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas that show that the Areas are expected to
remain in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the
following dates: GSMNP Area through January 6, 2030; Rocky Mount Area
through January 5, 2027; and Triangle Area through December 26, 2027.
    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Areas are well
below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NCDAQ chose the LMP option for the
development of the Areas' second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS maintenance
plans. On September 22, 2020, NCDAQ adopted and submitted the second
10-year 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plans to EPA as revisions to the
North Carolina SIP.

III. North Carolina's SIP Submittals

    As mentioned above, on September 22, 2020, NCDAQ submitted the
GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS to
EPA as revisions to the North Carolina SIP. The submittal includes the
LMPs, air quality data, emissions inventory information, and
appendices, as well as evidence of adoption of the plan by NCDAQ.
Appendices to the plan include comments and responses between EPA and
NCDAQ; documentation of notice, hearing, and public participation prior
to adoption of the plan by NCDAQ on September 22, 2020; and an
explanation that North Carolina's LMP submittals for the remainder of
the 20-year maintenance period for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
remaining GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount 1997 8-hour ozone areas are
in response to the Court overturning aspects of EPA's Implementation
Plan rule. In addition, the LMPs went through interagency consultation.
    The GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-Hour ozone
NAAQS each include same or similar emission reduction strategies as
each Area's first 10-year Maintenance Plan, as well as additional
emissions reduction measures to provide for the maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS through the following dates: GSMNP Area through
January 6, 2030; Rocky Mount Area through January 5, 2027; and Triangle
Area through December 26, 2027. Specifically, the measures upon which
the second 10-year LMPs for the Areas rely include the continuation of
the Clean Air Bill/Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance
Program,\18\ Clean Smokestacks Act, and the Open Burning Rule found in
Chapter 15A NCAC 02D.1903. Each Area's LMP also relies on continued
implementation of federal measures (e.g., Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emission
and Fuel Standards; Heavy-duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicle
Standards; Large Nonroad Diesel Engine Standards; Nonroad Spark-
Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine Standards; Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards; \19\ and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) Consent Decree).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On September 25, 2018, EPA approved removal of 26 counties
from North Carolina's expanded Inspection and Maintenance program.
The removal affected the following counties subject to this action:
Haywood, Granville, Orange, Chatham, Edgecombe, and Nash. See 83 FR
48383. On September 11, 2019, EPA published a final rule approving
revisions to North Carolina's expanded Inspection and Maintenance
model year coverage for vehicles in 22 counties. The revision
affected the following counties subject to this action: Durham,
Johnston, Franklin and Wake. See 84 FR 47889.
    \19\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's SIP Submittals

    EPA has reviewed the Areas' LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
which is designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the
Areas through the end of the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as
required under CAA section 175A(b). The following is a summary of EPA's
interpretation of the section 1745A requirements \20\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs include an ozone attainment
inventory for each of the Areas that reflect typical summer day
emissions for 2014. Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for
2014 contained in the LMPs.

 Table 1--Average Summer Day 2014 NOX and VOC Emissions by Sector (Tons/Day) in GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2014
               Maintenance area                              Sector              -------------------------------
                                                                                NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSMNP.........................................  Fire............................           0.000           0.000
                                                Nonpoint........................           0.000           0.039
                                                Nonroad.........................           0.002           0.029
                                                Onroad..........................           0.184           0.245
                                                Point...........................           0.000           0.000
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total........................           0.186           0.313
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rocky Mount...................................  Fire............................           0.005           0.055
                                                Nonpoint........................           1.382           5.895
                                                Nonroad.........................           1.453           0.946
                                                Onroad..........................           8.841           4.391
                                                Point...........................           2.938           1.576
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total........................          14.619          12.863
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triangle......................................  Fire............................           0.014           0.146
                                                Nonpoint........................           6.103          51.294
                                                Nonroad.........................          14.970          15.782
                                                Onroad..........................          64.856          32.603
                                                Point...........................          40.457           7.383
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total \21\...................         126.400         107.208
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Emissions Inventory section of the LMPs for the GSMNP, Triangle
and Rocky Mount Areas describes the methods, models and assumptions
used to develop the attainment inventory. These estimates were derived
from emissions values provided by EPA for use in developing maintenance
plans for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\22\ For the Rocky Mount Area,
NCDAQ used the emissions summaries generated by EPA from the 2014
Version 7.1 modeling platform.\23\ Because EPA's emissions estimates
are provided at the county level and the GSMNP and Triangle Areas
include one or more partial counties, NCDAQ developed methodologies to
estimate the proportion of county emissions occurring in these
maintenance areas. These methodologies utilize a combination of more
specific locational data as well as local expert judgment.\24\ The
emissions data in the 2014v7.1 platform are primarily based on the
2014NEIv1 for point sources, nonpoint sources, commercial marine
vessels (CMV), onroad and nonroad mobile sources, and fires. The GSMNP
and Triangle area estimates reflect some adjustments to EPA's estimates
as described on pages 11 through 16 of the submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The totals represented in the table may be slightly
different than the inventories in the LMPs based on rounding
convention.
    \22\ U.S. EPA, ``1997 Ozone NAAQS Air Quality Monitoring and
Modeling Data'' downloaded from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_air_qual_monitoring_and_modeling_data_nov_19_2018_1.xlsx, accessed April 2020.
    \23\ U.S. EPA, ``Air Emissions Modeling, 2014 Version 7.1
Platform,'' is available from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-version-71-platform, accessed April 2020 (note that
the version 7 platform, which included 2028 projections is not
available on EPA's website).
    \24\ NCDAQ also coordinated with the National Park Service for
the GSMNP area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
DAQ to develop the VOC and NOX estimates, we propose to find
that the Areas' LMPs include a comprehensive, reasonably accurate
inventory of actual ozone precursor emissions in attainment year 2014,
and propose to conclude that the plans' inventories are acceptable for
the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section
175A(b).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in an LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation
over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\25\ These criteria
are evaluated below with regard to the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount
Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Calcagni Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm (84 parts per
billion or ``ppb'') \26\ or below. EPA has evaluated the quality
assured and certified 2017-2019 monitoring data (which was the most
recent data at the time of submission) and determined that the 2017-
2019 design values for the Areas are as follows: 63 ppb, or 75 percent
of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the GSMNP Area; 64 ppb,
or 74 percent of the level of the NAAQS for the Triangle Area; and 61
ppb, or 73 percent of the level of the NAAQS for the Rocky Mount Area.
In addition, EPA evaluated the quality assured and certified 2018-2020
monitoring data (which is the current most recent monitoring data) and
determined that the 2018-2020 design values for the Areas are as
follows: 62 ppb, or 74 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the GSMNP Area; 60 ppb, or 71 percent of the level of the
NAAQS for the Triangle Area; and 58 ppb, or 69 percent of the level of
the NAAQS for the Rocky Mount Area. Consistent with prior guidance, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is well below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85 percent of
the NAAQS, or in this case below 71 ppb), then EPA considers the state
to have met the section 175A requirement for a demonstration that the
area will maintain the NAAQS for the requisite period. Such a
demonstration assumes continued applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements and any control measures already
in the SIP, and that Federal measures will remain in place through the
end of the second 10-year maintenance period, absent a showing
consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to
assure maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in ppm. To convert ppm
to ppb the decimal is moved three places to the right (i.e., 0.084
ppm is equal to 84 ppb). NCDAQ provided the values in ppb for easy
reference.

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

    Table 2 presents the design values for each monitor in the GSMNP,
Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas over the 2011-2020 period.\27\ As shown
in Table 2, all sites have been well below the level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS since the 2009-2011 design value, and the most current
design value for each of the Areas is below 85 percent of the NAAQS,
consistent with prior LMP guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NCDAQ provided monitoring data for years 2001 through 2019
and projected 2023 design values for each monitor as supporting
weight of evidence. The values can be found on Page 8 of the
submittal. The monitoring data shows the general downward trend in
design values at the monitoring sites. The data also shows the
highest design value projected in 2023 is 53.8 ppb, 57.5 ppb and
51.3 ppb for GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount, respectively.

                       Table 2--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppb) at Monitoring Sites in the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas for the 2011-2020 Time Period
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1997 Ozone NAAQS                2009-2011  2010-2012  2011-2013  2012-2014  2013-2015  2014-2016  2015-2017  2016-2018  2017-2019  2018-2020
           Location                   County              area         AQS Site ID      DV         DV         DV         DV         DV         DV         DV         DV         DV         DV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW Corner of Roof Haywood Co    Haywood..........  GSMNP............   37-087-0004     (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)      (\a\)
 Health Department Building.
Waynesville School............  Haywood..........  GSMNP............   37-087-0008    \a\ 65     \a\ 65         61         60         60         62         61         61         59         58
Frying Pan Mountain...........  Haywood..........  GSMNP............   37-087-0035   (* \b\)    (* \b\)    (* \b\)         67         65         66         64         63         62         61
Purchase Knob.................  Haywood..........  GSMNP............   37-087-0036        67         68         65         65         64         65         64         64         63         62
Bryson City...................  Swain............  GSMNP............   37-173-0002        62         62         58         57         57         60         60         60         58         56
Acquoni Rd....................  Swain............  GSMNP............   37-173-0007       (*)        (*)        (*)         58         59         61         58         58    (* \c\)         58
Pittsboro.....................  Chatham..........  Triangle.........   37-037-0004        66         65         61         59         58        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
Duke Street \d\...............  Durham...........  Triangle.........   37-063-0013       (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
Durham \d\ Armory.............  Durham...........  Triangle.........   37-063-0015        70         72         68         66         61         62         61         62         61         59
Franklinton...................  Franklin.........  Triangle.........   37-069-0001        69         71         68         64         61        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
Butner........................  Granville........  Triangle.........   37-077-0001        72         72         69         66         63         64         64         65         64         60
West Johnston Co..............  Johnston.........  Triangle.........   37-101-0002        71         74         70         67         63         65         63         63         61         59
Bushy Fork....................  Person...........  Triangle.........   37-145-0003        70         74         69         66         61         63         61         62         62         59
Millbrook School..............  Wake.............  Triangle.........   37-183-0014        71         72         68         65         63         65         66         66         64         60
Fuquay-Varina.................  Wake.............  Triangle.........   37-183-0016        73         75         71         65         62        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)        (*)
Leggett.......................  Edgecombe........  Rocky Mount......   37-065-0099        70         71         69         65         62    (* \b\)         62         62         61         58
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The monitor at the Haywood County Health Department building was discontinued in 2011 due to remodeling. The monitor was moved across the street to an elementary school (the Waynesville
  School monitor). EPA approved combining the data from the two sites to provide design values for 2009-2011 and 2010-2012.
\b\ This design value did not meet the three-year completeness requirement of 90%.
\c\ This design value did not meet the three-year completeness requirement of 90% due to instrument malfunctions with various components of the analytic system during much of July and August
  2017.
\d\ The DAQ decided to consolidate the Duke Street ozone monitor and Durham Health PM monitors at one site, located across the street from the Duke Street location. EPA approved combining the
  data from the two sites to provide design values for 2005-2007 and 2006-2008.
* These monitors were either discontinued or had incomplete data.

    Therefore, the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas are eligible
for the LMP option, and EPA proposes to find that the long record of
monitored ozone concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the
continuation of existing VOC and NOX emissions control
programs, adequately provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Areas through the second 10-year maintenance period
and beyond.
2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas have
maintained air quality well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the
past ten years. Additionally, the design value data shown within Table
2 illustrates that ozone levels have been relatively stable over this
timeframe, with a modest downward trend. For example, the data within
Table 2 indicates that the largest, year over year change in design
value in these ten years was 4 ppb for the GSMNP Area, which occurred
between the 2012 design value and 2013 design value at monitor 37-087-
0008 (Waynesville School) and at monitor 37-173-0002 (Bryson City),
representing approximately a 6 percent decrease; 6 ppb for the Triangle
Area, which occurred between the 2013 design value and 2014 design
value at monitor 37-183-0016 (Fuquay-Varina), representing
approximately an 8 percent decrease; and 4 ppb for the Rocky Mount
Area, which occurred between the 2013 design value and 2014 design
value at monitor 37-065-0099 (Leggett), representing approximately a 6
percent decrease.
    Furthermore, overall trends in design values for the Areas between
2011-2020 indicates decreases in the monitored ozone concentrations.
See, e.g., Table 2, above. The overall downward trend in design values
for the GSMNP Area for monitor 37-087-0036 (Purchase Knob) was from 67
ppb to 62 ppb, a 7 percent decrease; the overall downward trend in the
Triangle Area for monitor 37-077-0001 (Butner) was from 72 ppb to 60
ppb, a 17 percent decrease; and the overall downward trend for the only
Rocky Mount monitor 37-065-0099 (Leggett) was from 70 ppb to 58 ppb, a
17 percent decrease.
    The downward trend in ozone levels, coupled with the relatively
small, year-over-year variation in ozone design values, makes it
reasonable to conclude that the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas
will not exceed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year
maintenance period.
3. Projected Emissions
    Although under the LMP option there is no requirement to project
emissions over the maintenance period, NCDAQ included an analysis of
ozone precursor emissions trends expected over the course of the second
maintenance period. NCDAQ provided a VOC and NOX emissions
trends analysis from 2014 to 2028. The year 2014 was selected as a
baseline for the projection because that is the most recent year for
which a complete set of data is available from the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database.\28\ Projected

emissions data for the year 2028 were obtained from EPA.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The 2017 NEI is currently available, however the 2014 NEI
was the most recent NEI available at the time the second maintenance
plan was developed by the State, and therefore, the 2014 NEI was
used.
    \29\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-2016-version-7-air-emissions-modeling-platforms. EPA's emissions
projections to 2028 were made from the 2011 NEI, as that iteration
of the NEI was the most recently available version when the
projection work was performed. Although this projection does not
correspond exactly with the end of the second ten-year maintenance
period, it provides additional support for EPA's proposed finding
that the Area will maintain the NAAQS due to its low and
historically stable design values. See the Emissions Inventory
section of the LMP for additional information regarding the 2028
projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions projection trends show that between 2014 and 2028,
VOC emissions are estimated to fall by 67 percent within the GSMNP
Area; 28 percent in the Triangle Area; and 27 percent in the Rocky
Mount Area. The emissions projection trends show that between 2014 and
2028, NOX emissions are estimated to fall by 80 percent in
the GSMNP Area; 52 percent in the Triangle Area; and 68 percent in the
Rocky Mount Area. These projected declining emissions trends further
support the proposed conclusion that it is unlikely that the Areas
would violate the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future. Table 3
presents a summary of projected emissions for 2028 contained in the
maintenance plan.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The inventory documentation for this platform can be found
here: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsmodeling/2011-version-63-platform.

                   Table 3--Average Summer Day Projected 2028 NOX and VOC Emissions by Sector
                                                   [Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2028
               Maintenance area                              Sector              -------------------------------
                                                                                NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSMNP.........................................  Fire \31\.......................           0.000           0.000
                                                Nonpoint........................           0.000           0.032
                                                Nonroad.........................           0.001           0.017
                                                Onroad..........................           0.036           0.055
                                                Point...........................           0.000           0.000
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total........................           0.037           0.104
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mount...................................  Fire............................           0.005           0.055
                                                Nonpoint........................           1.133           6.667
                                                Nonroad.........................           0.807           0.903
                                                Onroad..........................           1.804           0.983
                                                Point...........................           0.892           0.774
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total........................           4.641           9.382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triangle......................................  Fire............................           0.012           0.128
                                                Nonpoint........................           5.867          45.769
                                                Nonroad.........................           9.167          14.533
                                                Onroad..........................          15.113          10.646
                                                Point...........................          30.654           5.631
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Total \32\...................          60.813          76.707
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the long history of monitored ozone concentrations
in these Areas that are well-below the NAAQS, additional supporting
information that the Areas are expected to continue to maintain the
NAAQS can be found in an analysis of future year design values that EPA
recently completed for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.\33\ The modeled-projected
analysis for monitors in the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas,
made for the year 2023, resulted in fewer than five days with modeled
ozone concentrations greater than or equal to 60 ppb, indicating that
future-year design values are expected to remain well below the NAAQS.
EPA is not proposing to make any finding in this action regarding
interstate transport obligations for any state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The DAQ replaced the 2028 fire sector emissions, which
reflected estimates carried forward from the 2011 NEI, with values
carried forward from the 2014 NEI.
    \32\ The totals represented in the table may be slightly
different based on rounding convention.
    \33\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the final Revised CSAPR
Update using updated modeling that focused on analytic years 2023
and 2028 and an interpolation analysis of these modeling results to
generate air quality and contribution values for the 2021 analytic
year. See 86 FR 23054. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-30/pdf/2021-05705.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that NCDAQ
operates and maintains in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network
plan, which is submitted annually to EPA, is consistent with the
ambient air quality monitoring network assessment. The annual network
plan developed by NCDAQ follows a public notification and review
process. EPA has reviewed and approved the 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan (``2020 Annual Network Plan'').\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The letter approving the network plan is in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of the Areas over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, NCDAQ's monitoring
network in the Areas have been approved by EPA in accordance with 40
CFR part 58, and the State has committed to continue to maintain a
network in accordance with EPA requirements. EPA proposes to find that
NCDAQ's monitoring network is adequate to verify continued attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in each of the Areas.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS

or to promptly remedy any NAAQS violations that might occur during the
maintenance period. These contingency measures are required to be
implemented expeditiously once they are triggered by a future violation
of the NAAQS or some other trigger. The state should identify specific
triggers which will be used to determine when the contingency measures
need to be implemented.
    The LMPs state that the two main elements of the North Carolina
contingency plans are tracking and triggering mechanisms to determine
when control measures are needed, and a process for developing and
adopting appropriate control measures. There are three potential
triggers for the contingency plans. The primary trigger of each plan
will be a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS at any of the
maintenance area monitors. The secondary trigger will be a monitored
air quality pattern that suggests an actual 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
violation may be imminent. The tertiary trigger will be a monitored
fourth highest exceedance of the NAAQS. Upon either the primary or
secondary triggers being activated, NCDAQ will commence analyses to
determine what additional measures, if any, will be necessary to attain
or maintain the ozone standard. If activation of either the primary or
secondary triggers occurs, each plan provides a regulatory adoption
process for revising emission control strategies. Activation of the
tertiary trigger will result in an analysis to understand the cause of
the exceedance and to identify voluntary measures if needed. The
primary trigger date will be 60 days from the date on which an ozone
monitor in a maintenance area records a 4th highest value that, when
averaged with the two previous ozone seasons' fourth highest values,
results in a 3-year average equal to or greater than 85 ppb. The
secondary trigger date will be 60 days from the date on which an ozone
monitor in a maintenance area records a 4th highest value of 85 ppb or
greater for which the previous season had a 4th highest value of 85 ppb
or greater. The tertiary trigger date will be 60 days from the date on
which an ozone monitor in a maintenance area records a 4th highest
value of 85 ppb or greater.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See the Contingency Plan Section of each LMP for further
information regarding the contingency plan, including measures that
North Carolina will consider for adoption if any of the triggers are
activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DAQ commits to begin implementing as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 24 months of the primary or secondary
trigger, at least one control measure that is determined to be most
appropriate for reducing NOX emissions to attain and
maintain the standard based on the analyses performed.
    EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in North
Carolina's second maintenance plans for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
meet the requirements of the CAA section 175A(d).

E. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS include an approvable update of the
various elements (including attainment inventory, assurance of adequate
monitoring and verification of continued attainment, and contingency
provisions) of the initial EPA-approved Maintenance Plans for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to find that the GSMNP, Triangle
and Rocky Mount Areas, qualify for the LMP option, and adequately
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the
documentation of monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone
levels well below the NAAQS and historically stable design values. EPA
believes the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which retain all existing control measures, are sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in each of
the Areas over the second maintenance period (i.e., through January 6,
2030 for the GSMNP Area, through January 5, 2027 for the Rocky Mount
Area, and through December 26, 2027 for the Triangle Area) and thereby
satisfy the requirements for such plans under CAA section 175A(b). EPA
is therefore proposing to approve North Carolina's September 22, 2020,
submission of each Area's LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as a
revision to the North Carolina SIP.

V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
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. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B). EPA's
transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A requires
that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether they
conform. The conformity rule generally requires a demonstration that
emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor
vehicles emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP
revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124. A
MVEB is defined as ``the portion of the total allowable emissions
defined in the submitted or approved control strategy implementation
plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain date for the purpose of
meeting reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or
its precursors, allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions'' See 40 CFR 93.101.
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). EPA made
findings that the MVEBs in the first 10-years of the 1997 8-hour zone
maintenance plan for the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas were
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In a Federal Register
notice published on December 7, 2009, EPA notified the public of the
adequacy finding for the GSMNP Area through final rulemaking; the
adequacy determination for GSMNP Area became effective on January 6,
2010. See 74 FR 63995. In a Federal Register notice published on
December 26, 2007, EPA notified the public of the adequacy finding for
the Triangle Area through final rulemaking; the adequacy determination
for the Triangle Area became effective on December 26, 2007. See 72 FR
72948. In a Federal Register notice published on November 6, 2006, EPA
notified the public of the adequacy finding for the Rocky Mount Area
through direct final rulemaking; the adequacy determination for the
Rocky Mount Area became effective on January 5, 2007. See 71 FR
64891.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ NCDAQ submitted a SIP revision to update the MVEBs for the
Rocky Mount Area on February 7, 2011. EPA approved the updated MVEBs
on September 27, 2012. See 77 FR 59335. The approval was made
through direct final rulemaking and became effective on November 26,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After approval of or an adequacy finding for each of these LMPs,
there is no requirement to meet the budget test pursuant to the
transportation conformity rule for the respective maintenance area. All
actions that would require a transportation conformity determination
for the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas under EPA's
transportation conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as

a result of EPA's adequacy finding for these LMPs. See 69 FR 40004
(July 1, 2004).
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation
projects still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet the criteria for consultation (40 CFR
93.105) and Transportation Control Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113), as well as meet the hot-
spot requirements for projects (40 CFR 93.116).\37\ Additionally,
conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP
amendments and transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance
with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition,
in order for projects to be approved they must come from a currently
conforming RTP and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 93.115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ A conformity determination that meets other applicable
criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this section (93.109(e)) is
still required, including the hot-spot requirements for projects in
CO, PM10, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Actions

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky
Mount LMPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by NCDAQ on
September 22, 2020, as revisions to the North Carolina SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the LMPs because each LMP includes an acceptable
update of the various elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
Maintenance Plans approved by EPA for the first 10-year period
(including emissions inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and
verification of continued attainment, and contingency provisions), and
retains the relevant portions of the SIP.
    EPA also finds that the GSMNP, Triangle and Rocky Mount Areas,
former nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, qualify for
the LMP option, and therefore, the Areas' LMPs adequately demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through documentation of
monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the
NAAQS and continuation of existing control measures. EPA believes each
of the Areas' 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMPs to be sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the second 10-year
maintenance periods (which extends through January 6, 2030 for the
GSMNP Area, through January 5, 2027 for the Rocky Mount Area; and
through December 26, 2027 for the Triangle Area), and thereby satisfy
the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).

VII. 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. These actions merely
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having significant economic impacts
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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).
    These SIP revisions are not proposed 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 3, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-02718 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70910]
[DOCID:fr23no05-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52752A; File No. SR-NASD-2004-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments
Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Relating to Short Sale Delivery Requirements

November 17, 2005.

Correction

    In FR Document No. E5-6306, beginning on page 69614 for Wednesday,
November 16, 2005, in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the
Notice the date should read March 10, 2004.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6457 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40017-40020]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15710]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0303; FRL-9391-7]

Ethalfluralin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
ethalfluralin in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A and sunflower subgroup
20B. This regulation additionally removes the established tolerances in
or on mustard, seed; rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; and sunflower,
seed, as they will be superseded by the tolerances established by this
final rule. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 3, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 3, 2013,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0303, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
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:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP
test guidelines referenced in this document electronically, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0303 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
September 3, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0303, 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 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.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43562) (FRL-9353-
6), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8007) by IR-4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.416 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide ethalfluralin, N-
ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine, in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A and
sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Dow
AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the tolerance expression for all established commodities to be
consistent with current Agency policy. The reason for this change is
explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for ethalfluralin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with ethalfluralin
follows.

A. Reliance on Previous Rulemaking Safety Finding and Risk Assessment

    In the Federal Register of December 5, 2007 (72 FR 68529) (FRL-
8342-2), EPA published a final rule (2007 rulemaking) establishing
tolerances for residues of the herbicide ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-
methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine, in or on
dry and fresh dill leaves, mustard seed, potato, and rapeseed, seed at
0.05 ppm, based on EPA's conclusion that aggregate exposure to
ethalfluralin is safe for the general population, including infants and
children. Since 2007, there have been no additional tolerance actions
for ethalfluralin. The toxicity profile of ethalfluralin has not
changed since the 2007 rulemaking.
    Except as supplemented by the information described in this unit,
EPA is relying on the risk assessment underlying the 2007 rulemaking to
establish tolerances of ethalfluralin in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A
and sunflower subgroup 20B. Further information about EPA's risk
assessment and determination of safety supporting the 2007 rulemaking
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document entitled:
``Ethalfluralin: Human Health Risk Assessment for (IR-4) Proposed Uses
on Dill and Potato,'' document ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195-0003. The
final rule for the 2007 rulemaking can be found in document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0195-0002. Currently, there are tolerances established
for residues of ethalfluralin in or on the representative commodities
of crop subgroups 20A (rapeseed) and 20B (sunflower seed).
    These tolerances were based on adequate residue field trial data.
The results of these residue data indicate that no ethalfluralin
residues were detected in or on rapeseed and sunflower; therefore,
tolerances were established at the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05
ppm for these commodities. Additionally, ethalfluralin tolerances are
established at the LOQ of 0.05 ppm for mustard seed (subgroup 20A) and
safflower seed (subgroup 20B). The ``no detected residues'' finding is
further supported by review of the Pesticide Database Program (PDP),
where no residues of ethalfluralin were found on any crop from 2007 to
2010. Since the proposed use rates for all commodities in crop subgroup
20A and 20B are the same as what is currently permitted for application
to rapeseed and sunflower seed under the existing registrations, the
Agency expects similar ethalfluralin residues to be present on other
commodities in subgroups 20A and 20B.
    Moreover, rapeseed and sunflower seed, in addition to safflower
seed, are by far the most consumed commodities in crop subgroups 20A
and 20B; other commodities in crop subgroup 20A and 20B have low rates
of consumption, as

supported by the fact that all members of subgroups 20A and 20B except
sesame, safflower, and mustard are not included in the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey/``What We Eat in America'' (NHANES/
WWEIA) dietary survey. EPA does not expect that adding sesame exposures
to the ethalfluralin risk assessment to change the overall risk since
consumption of sesame and exposure to ethalfluralin residues on sesame
are expected to be so minor compared to all the representative crops.
As a result, EPA does not expect the establishment of tolerances for
the rapeseed subgroup 20A and the sunflower subgroup 20B to increase
food exposure from what was assessed in the 2007 risk assessment.
    Further, residues from drinking water are not expected to change
from the 2007 risk assessment because the application rate for subgroup
20A and 20B will be the same as the currently registered application
rate for rapeseed and sunflower. As a result, the addition of the new
crops in subgroups 20A and 20B would not change the estimated drinking
water concentrations used in the 2007 risk assessment. In addition,
since the 2007 risk assessment relied on monitoring data for the cancer
assessment, EPA has reviewed the most recent water monitoring data to
ensure that the conclusions of 2007 risk assessment are still valid.
Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) PDP and U.S.
Geological Survey, National Water-Quality Assessment Program (USGS/
NAWQA) still show that there have been no detectable or very limited
detectable residues of ethalfluralin in sampled drinking water and
surface/ground water. PDP sampled 3,515 samples of drinking water
between 2006 and 2011, and there were no detects at a limit of
detection (LOD) between 30 and 400 parts per trillion (ppt). Likewise,
there has been a very low detection frequency (0.8%) of ethalfluralin
in the USGS/NAWQA monitoring data in the last search. Therefore, the
assumptions in the 2007 risk assessment regarding drinking water are
still valid.
    Since the dietary risk depends on both consumption (which the
Agency does not expect to vary significantly from the 2007 risk
assessment) and residue levels (which the Agency expects to remain the
same as the 2007 risk assessment), the Agency does not expect the risk
from ethalfluralin to change from the 2007 risk assessment.

B. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Ptotection Act
(FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor.
    2. In the preamble to the 2007 rulemaking, EPA explained the
decision to reduce the FQPA SF to 1X based on reliable data. For this
action, EPA is reducing the FQPA SF to 1X for the following reasons:
    a. For the 2007 rulemaking, the toxicity database was considered
complete. However, changes to 40 CFR part 158 since the 2007 rulemaking
imposed new data requirements for immunotoxicity testing and acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity testing for pesticide registration. In 2012,
EPA determined that the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are
not required for ethalfluralin based on a weight-of-evidence approach,
considering all of the available hazard and exposure information.
However, the immunotoxicity study remains a data requirement at this
time.
    Although an immunotoxicity study has not been received by the
Agency, there is relatively little concern as there are no indications
of immunotoxicity in the toxicology database; it does not appear that
ethalfluralin directly targets the immune system. Additionally,
ethalfluralin does not belong to a class of chemicals (e.g., the
organotins, heavy metals, halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that would
be expected to be immunotoxic. Therefore, the Agency does not believe
that conducting an immunotoxicity study will result in a lower point of
departure (POD) than that currently used for overall risk assessment,
and the 10X FQPA SF (in the form of a database uncertainty factor
(UFDB)) is not needed to account for the lack of the study.
    b. EPA has fully evaluated the toxicity database of ethalfluralin
with respect to the potential for special sensitivity of infants and
children, and concludes that there is low concern for pre- and
postnatal susceptibility for infants and children. The FQPA SF has been
reduced to 1X because:
    i. The toxicity database is adequate to characterize potential pre-
and postnatal risk for infants and children.
    ii. No reproductive or developmental effects were observed in rats.
    iii. Although there were slight developmental effects observed
(skeletal malformations) in rabbits (fetuses), they were seen in the
presence of maternal toxicity. Additionally, the dose chosen for acute
dietary risk assessment is protective of the slight developmental
effects observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity studies.
    c. Based on the discussion in Unit III.A., EPA does not expect
dietary exposure to ethalfluralin or residues in drinking water to be
underestimated.

C. Conclusion

    Based upon the findings supporting the 2007 rulemaking and the
information discussed in Unit III., EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children, from aggregate exposures to
ethalfluralin residues as a result of establishing the tolerances for
rapeseed subgroup 20A and sunflower subgroup 20B. Refer to the 2007
rulemaking, available at http://www.regulations.gov, for a detailed
discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of
safety.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodologies, two gas chromatography with
electron capture detection (GC/ECD) methods, are available to enforce
the tolerance expression. These methods are available in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual Volume II, section 180.416.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for ethalfluralin.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency has revised the tolerance expression to clarify:
    1. That, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance
covers metabolites and degradates of ethalfluralin not specifically
mentioned.
    2. That compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-benzenamine, in or on rapeseed subgroup 20A at 0.05
ppm and sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.05 ppm. This regulation
additionally removes established tolerances in or on mustard, seed;
rapeseed, seed; safflower, seed; and sunflower, seed.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 21, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.416:
0
i. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a).
0
ii. Remove the commodities, ``Mustard, seed;'' ``Rapeseed, seed;''
``Safflower, seed;'' and ``Sunflower, seed'' from the table in
paragraph (a).
0
iii. Add alphabetically the following commodities to the table in
paragraph (a).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  180.416  Ethalfluralin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide ethalfluralin, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the following table. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only the residues of ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-
propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Rapeseed subgroup 20A...................................            0.05

                                * * * * *
Sunflower subgroup 20B..................................            0.05

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-15710 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P