Panel Members for the Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to consider and review issues associated with the data

required to register Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIP)

February 25-27, 2009

Docket number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0835			OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Designated Federal Official

Joseph E. Bailey

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC  20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Kirby C. Donnelly, Ph.D.

Professor and Head

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health

School of Rural Public Health

Texas A&M University System Health Science Center

College Station, Texas

Carey N. Pope, Ph.D.

Professor, Head & Sitlington Chair of Toxicology

Department of Physiological Sciences

Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine

Stillwater, Oklahoma

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, California

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Werner Braun, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Senior Scientist, Sealy Center for Structural Biology

University of Texas Medical Branch

Galveston, Texas

Johanne Brunet, Ph.D.

Research Ecologist - USDA-ARS

Vegetable Crops Research Unit

Assistant Professor

Department of Horticulture

University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

Kari E. Dunfield, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Applied Soil Ecology

University of Guelph

Guelph, Ontario

CANADA

Brian A. Federici, Ph,D.

Professor of Entomology & Interdepartmental Graduate

   Programs in Genetics and Microbiology

University of California Riverside

Riverside, California

Steven M. Gendel, Ph.D.

Risk Assessment Project Manager

Food & Drug Administration

Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition

College Park, Maryland

Richard Hellmich, Ph.D.

Research Entomologist

USDA-ARS

Corn, Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

Robert J. Kremer, Ph.D.

Microbiologist

USDA-ARS

University of Missouri

Columbia, Missouri

C. Randal Linder, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Section of Integrative Biology

Center for Computational Biology and

Bioinformatics

University of Texas at Austin

Austin, Texas

Kristin L. Mercer, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

The Ohio State University

Department of Horticulture & Crop Science

Columbus, Ohio


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46954-46955]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0868]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Draft Guidance for Industry: Use of Serological Tests
To Reduce the Risk of Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in
Whole Blood and Blood Components for Transfusion

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments concerning establishment
notification of a consignee and consignee notification of a recipient's
physician of record regarding a possible increased risk of Trypanosoma
cruzi (T. cruzi) infection.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by October 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests

or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep
records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to
provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension
of an existing collection of information, before submitting the
collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is
publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth
in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance for Industry: Use of Serological Tests To Reduce the Risk of
Transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi Infection in Whole Blood and Blood
Components for Transfusion--(OMB Control Number 0910-0681)--Extension

    The guidance implements the donor screening recommendations for the
FDA-approved serological test systems for the detection of antibodies
to T. cruzi. The use of the donor screening tests are to reduce the
risk of transmission of T. cruzi infection by detecting antibodies to
T. cruzi in plasma and serum samples from individual human donors,
including donors of Whole Blood and Blood Components intended for
transfusion. The guidance recommends that establishments that
manufacture Whole Blood and Blood Components intended for transfusion
should notify consignees of all previously collected in-date blood and
blood components to quarantine and return the blood components to
establishments or to destroy them within three calendar days after a
donor tests repeatedly reactive by a licensed test for T. cruzi
antibody. When establishments identify a donor who is repeatedly
reactive by a licensed test for T. cruzi antibodies and for whom there
is additional information indicating risk of T. cruzi infection, such
as testing positive on a licensed supplemental test (when such test is
available) or until such test is available, information that the donor
or donor's mother resided in an area endemic for Chagas disease
(Mexico, Central and South America) or as a result of other medical
diagnostic testing of the donor indicating T. cruzi infection, we
recommend that the establishment notify consignees of all previously
distributed blood and blood components collected during the
``lookback'' period and, if blood and blood components were transfused,
encourage consignees to notify the recipient's physician of record of a
possible increased risk of T. cruzi infection.
    Respondents to this information collection are establishments that
manufacture Whole Blood and Blood Components intended for transfusion.
We believe that the information collection provisions in the guidance
for establishments to notify consignees and for consignees to notify
the recipient's physician of record do not create a new burden for
respondents and are part of usual and customary business practices.
Since the end of January 2007, a number of blood centers representing a
large proportion of U.S. blood collections have been testing donors
using a licensed assay. We believe these establishments have already
developed standard operating procedures for notifying consignees and
the consignees to notify the recipient's physician of record.
    The guidance also refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in
21 CFR 601.12 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338;
the collections of information in 21 CFR 606.100, 606.121, 606.122,
606.160(b)(ix), 606.170(b), 610.40, and 630.6 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0116; the collections of information in 21 CFR
606.171 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0458.

    Dated: July 29, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18573 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25066-25074]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09982]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0527, FRL-9910-16-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York;
Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide Primary Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain elements of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements
of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA and is commonly
referred to as an infrastructure SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R02-OAR-2013-0527, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. 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 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2013-0527. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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 docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway,
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. EPA requests, if at all
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background information?
III. What elements are required under section 110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
V. What did New York submit?
VI. How has the State addressed the elements of the section
110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve certain elements of the State of New
York Infrastructure SIP as meeting the section 110(a) infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 NO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). As explained
below, the State has the necessary infrastructure, resources, and
general authority to implement the 2010 NO2 standard.

II. What is the background information?

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new, 1-hour primary NAAQS
for NO2 (2010 NO2 NAAQS) while retaining the
annual primary NAAQS for NO2 (75 FR 6474). The 2010
NO2 NAAQS is based on 1-hour three year average
concentrations.\1\ The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is 100 parts per
billion (ppb) and the new standard supplements the existing primary
annual standard of 53 ppb. The secondary NO2 NAAQS remains
unchanged and is the same as the primary annual average NO2
NAAQS, i.e., 53 ppb.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three year
average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations.
    \2\ The official level of the annual NO2 NAAQS is
0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 ppb which is shown here
for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA
require, in part, that states submit to EPA plans to implement,
maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. By statute,
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be
submitted by states within three years

after promulgation of a new or revised standard. These SIPs are
commonly called infrastructure SIPs. Based on the February 9, 2010
promulgation date, infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS were due on February 9, 2013.

III. What elements are required under section 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    The infrastructure requirements are listed in EPA's October 2,
2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and September
25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In addition,
in a memorandum dated September 13, 2013, EPA released new guidance
entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' \3\
This new guidance (2013 Guidance) addresses the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised NAAQS promulgated in
the future. The 14 elements required to be addressed are as follows:
(1) Emission limits and other control measures; (2) ambient air quality
monitoring/data system; (3) program for enforcement of control
measures; (4) interstate transport; (5) adequate resources; (6)
stationary source monitoring system; (7) emergency power; (8) future
SIP revisions; (9) consultation with government officials; (10) public
notification; (11) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility protection; (12) air quality modeling/data; (13) permitting
fees, and (14) consultation/participation by affected local entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' can
be found at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the 3 year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather
due at the time that the nonattainment area plan requirements are due
pursuant to section 172. See 77 FR 46354 (August 3, 2012); 77 FR 60308
(October 3, 2012, footnote 1). These requirements are: (1) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers
to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As a
result, this action does not address the nonattainment planning
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) or 110(a)(2)(I).

IV. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from New York State that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\4\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\5\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\6\ This ambiguity illustrates

that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2)
in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of
section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \6\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\7\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \8\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants,
for example because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\10\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\12\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the

applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \12\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include
provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the
option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter
optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\13\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes that its approach
with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA
provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive
deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to
take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and
severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes
EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency determines that a
state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the
NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with
the CAA.\14\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past
actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\15\

Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a
subsequent action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \15\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What did New York submit?

    New York's section 110 infrastructure submittal was submitted by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on
May 8, 2013, as supplemented on May 23, 2013, and addressed the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. New York's May 2013 section 110 submittals
demonstrate how the State, where applicable, has a plan in place that
meets the requirements of section 110 for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. This plan references the current New York Air Quality SIP, the
New York Codes of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), the New York
Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and the New York Public Officer's
Law (POL). The NYCRR, ECL and POL referenced in the submittal are
publicly available. New York's SIP and air pollution control
regulations that have been previously approved by EPA and incorporated
into the New York SIP can be found at 40 CFR 52.1670 and are posted on
the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/region02/air/sip/ny_reg.htm.

VI. How has the State addressed the elements of the section 110(a)(1)
and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    EPA compared New York's Infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS to New York's Infrastructure SIP submittals for
the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. On June 20, 2013, EPA took final action [see
78 FR 37122] approving certain elements and sub-elements of New York's
1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure
SIPs. Based upon EPA's comparison, EPA has determined that the
information provided in New York's 2010 NO2 Infrastructure
SIP is nearly identical to the information provided in New York's
Infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Infrastructure SIPs for different criteria
pollutants can have common aspects which are identical for each NAAQS
(e.g., authority to promulgate emission limitations, enforcement, air
quality modeling capabilities, adequate personnel, resources and legal
authority). The rationale for approving certain elements of New York's
Infrastructure SIP for NO2 is the same as the rationale for
approving those elements of New York's 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure SIPs. Since the rationale for
approving certain elements of New York's NO2 Infrastructure
SIP is the same as the rationale for approving certain elements of New
York's 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
Infrastructure SIPs, EPA is not repeating this evaluation in today's
proposal. Instead, the reader is referred to EPA's evaluation of the
three SIP submittals (the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 Infrastructure SIPs) detailed in the following three
documents: (1) ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed
Rulemaking for the New York's State Implementation Plan Revision: State
Implementation Plan Revision For Meeting the Infrastructure
Requirements In the Clean Air Act Dated December 13, 2007, October 2,
2008 and March 15, 2010'' (TSD); (2) EPA's proposed approval dated
April 30, 2013 (78 FR 25236); and, (3) EPA's June 20, 2013 final rule
approving certain elements of New York's Infrastructure SIPs for the
1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR
37122). These three documents are available in the electronic docket
for today's proposed action at www.regulations.gov. We are, of course,
accepting comments on that rationale as it applies to our proposed
approval of New York's Infrastructure SIP for the NO2 NAAQS.
    EPA is proposing approval of the following elements and sub-
elements of New York's Infrastructure SIP for NO2:
110(a)(2)(A) [Emission limits and other control measures]; 110(a)(2)(B)
[Ambient air quality monitoring/data system]; 110(a)(2)(C) [Program for
enforcement of control measures]; 110(a)(2)(D) [Interstate transport];
110(a)(2)(E) [Adequate resources]; 110(a)(2)(F) [Stationary source
monitoring]; 110(a)(2)(G) [Emergency power]; 110(a)(2)(H) [Future SIP
Revisions]; 110(a)(2)(J) [Consultation with government official, public
notification, PSD, and visibility protection]; 110(a)(2)(K) [Air
quality and modeling/data]; 110(a)(2)(L) [Permitting fees];
110(a)(2)(M) [Consultation/participation by affected local entities].
    As stated above, there are certain aspects of the elements of New
York's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS that are
common to New York's 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 Infrastructure SIPs that EPA approved on June 20, 2013
and therefore EPA is not repeating the rationale for approving the
following elements of New York's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS in today's proposal: Elements A, D(i)(II), D(ii),
E, F, H, I, J, K, L, and M.
    As discussed in the following sections, for those elements of New
York's NO2 Infrastructure SIP that differ from New York's
1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 Infrastructure
SIPs, EPA has reviewed and evaluated the aspects of those elements,
namely elements B, C, D(i)(I) and G.
    Element B: Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, to
monitor, compile and analyze ambient air quality data, and to make
these data available to EPA upon request. EPA requires that states
establish a new ambient air quality monitoring and reporting
requirements for NO2 as follows: (1) In urban areas near
major roads and other locations where maximum concentration is
expected; (2) community wide monitoring in large urban areas; and (3)
in locations where EPA identifies monitoring will help protect
communities that are susceptible and vulnerable to NO2-
related health effects. New York addressed EPA's new monitoring
requirements when it submitted its Annual Monitoring Network Review
Plan (Plan) of 2013 on July 18, 2013. EPA approved this Plan on
September 5, 2013. EPA is therefore

proposing to determine that New York has met the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA with respect to the 2010 NO2
NAAQS. A copy of New York's 2013 Monitoring Plan and EPA's September 5,
2013 approval letter are in the docket for today's proposal at
www.regulations.gov.
    Element C: Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires states to have a plan that includes a program
providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source, including a
program to meet Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air
Quality and minor source new source review.
    New York's Infrastructure SIP for NO2 references the
State's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting
requirements contained in 6 NYCRR Part 231, Part 200 and Part 201. EPA
approved these rules into the SIP on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70140).
New York's minor source new source review program is regulated under
Part 201.
    EPA has reviewed and evaluated New York's Infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for meeting the requirements of element
C. While the Infrastructure SIP does not specifically reference
NO2, it refers to the State's PSD permitting requirements in
Part 231 which regulates oxides of nitrogen (NOX) which
includes NO2. In addition, element C of New York's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS refers to 8-hour
ozone. NOX is a precursor of ozone and PM2.5, and
NO2 is one of the components of NOX. Moreover,
the PSD portion of Part 231 regulates the construction of proposed new
or modified facilities that are required to demonstrate in their permit
application that allowable emission increases from the facilities, in
conjunction with all other applicable emission increases or reductions
(including secondary emissions), would not, among other things, cause
or significantly contribute to air pollution in violation of any
national ambient air quality standard \17\ in any air quality control
region. Since NO2 is a NAAQS, the PSD provisions of Part 231
are applicable to NO2. For these reasons, EPA concludes that
by referencing Part 231, which is part of New York's approved SIP, New
York's Infrastructure SIP addresses the PSD requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) for NO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, as follows:
Carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone (O3), particle pollution (PM), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the State has adequate
authority and regulations to ensure that SIP-approved control measures
are enforced. EPA also finds that based on the approval of New York's
PSD program, New York has the authority to regulate the construction of
new or modified stationary sources to meet the PSD program
requirements. EPA is proposing to determine that New York has met the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA with respect to
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. It should be noted that the PSD
provisions of Part 231 address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J)
as well as section 110(a)(2)(C).
    Element D: Interstate transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean
Air Act is divided into two subsections, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The first of these, 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in turn,
contains four ``prongs'' the first two of which appear in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the second two of which appear in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any
primary or secondary NAAQS (prong 1), or interfere with maintenance by
any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS (prong
2). The two prongs in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air
pollutants in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state
under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
addresses interstate and international pollution abatement, and
requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with sections
115 and 126 of the CAA, relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the 110(a)(2)(D)
portion of the New York SIP submission and determine that the existing
New York SIP contains provisions sufficient to satisfy all of the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. With
respect to the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), i.e., prongs 3 and
4, and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submission
based on the rationale presented in a June 20, 2013 Federal Register
notice approving New York's Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 37122; June 20,
2013). As that rationale was presented in some detail in the June 20,
2013 notice, it is not repeated in today's proposal. We are, of course,
accepting comments on that rationale as it applies to our proposed
approval of New York's Infrastructure SIP for the NO2 NAAQS.
    The New York SIP contains provisions to address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), i.e. prongs 1 and 2 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), with
respect to the NO2 NAAQS.\18\ EPA reviewed New York's May 8,
2013 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
and, based on that review and EPA's review of relevant air quality
data, EPA is proposing to determine that New York's SIP includes
adequate provisions to prohibit sources or other emission activities
within the State from emitting NOX in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
by any other state with respect specifically to the NO2
NAAQS. NO2 is a component of NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, EPA at this time is not
treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the SIP submission from
New York (which is part of the larger May 8, 2013 SIP submission for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS) as a required SIP submission. See EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2857 (2013). On June 24, 2013, the Supreme
Court granted the petitions of the United States and others and
agreed to review the merits of the D.C. Circuit decision in EME
Homer City during the Court's 2013 term. Regardless of whether a
particular SIP submission is considered ``required,'' however,
section 110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to act on the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA approved New York SIP presently includes requirements for
emissions limits on NOX including, but not limited to, Title
6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Parts 212,
217, 218, 219, 220, 224, 227-2, and 249. See 40 CFR 40 CFR 52.1670(c).

--Part 212--Imposes reasonably available control technology (RACT) on
major stationary sources not otherwise covered by other regulations.
--Part 217--Requires enhanced inspection and maintenance of light-duty
motor vehicles.
--Part 218--Establishes emission standards for motor vehicles and motor
vehicle engines.
--Part 219--Imposes controls on various type of incinerators.
--Part 220--Imposes RACT on emissions from cement kilns.
--Part 224--Imposes controls on NO2 emissions from nitric
acid plants.

--Part 227-2--Imposes RACT on utility and industrial boilers,
combustion turbines, stationary internal combustion engines and other
combustion installations (major facility of NOX that
contains an emission source type not regulated under the other Parts).
Major facilities existing prior to June 1, 2010 must comply with new
NOX RACT emission limits by July 1, 2014.
--Part 249--Applies best available retrofit technology (BART) to any
stationary source that has been determined to be BART-eligible and
whose emissions require control for the purpose of reducing regional
haze. Part 249 requires facilities to submit source- specific BART
proposals to New York. This rule applies to applicable BART eligible
sources including utility boilers and industrial sources such as
boilers, cement plants etc.

    In addition, all major stationary sources of NO2 are
subject to the SIP-approved requirements for prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review with Emission
Offset Provisions in 6 NYCRR Part 231 which provide preconstruction
review and permitting requirements in attainment and nonattainment
areas. The requirements of Part 231 help ensure that no new or modified
NO2 emitting source will cause or contribute to any
potential exceedances of the NO2 NAAQS.
    On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA promulgated a rule that
established air quality designations for all areas of the country for
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS based on air quality monitoring data for
the period 2008-2010. Based upon this 2008-2010 air quality monitoring
data, EPA determined that no area of the country is violating the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. EPA reviewed 2008-2012 NO2 air quality
monitoring data for New York, including the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe,
as well as the states surrounding or bordering New York within 50
kilometers of New York's boarders, including Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. EPA selected fifty
kilometers from New York for reviewing design values at monitors
because 50 kilometers is the standard distance for modeling analysis in
EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51)
and EPA is acting consistent with that Guideline. The most recent
design values \19\ (DVs) that are computed using quality-assured and
certified ambient air monitoring data using the Federal Reference
method or equivalent data is reported by states, tribes and local
agencies to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). Data for 2008-2010, 2009-
2011 and 2010-2012 for monitors in states surrounding or bordering New
York within 50 kilometers of New York are in Table 1 below and show
that the DVs are well below the NAAQS for NO2. The level of
the 1-hour NAAQS for NO2 is 100 parts per billion (ppb) and
the form is the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the
daily 1-hour maximum. In the states surrounding and bordering New York
within the 50 kilometers reviewed by EPA, there are no areas with
design values for 2008-2010, 2009-2011 and 2010-2012 that exceed the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. For example, the highest DV for 2008-2010 is
73 (Union, NJ), well below the 100 ppb NAAQS. See Table 1 below for DVs
surrounding and bordering New York within 50 kilometers of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For the most recent design values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

                      Table 1--Design Values Surrounding and Bordering New York State \20\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2009-2011       2010-2012
           State                   County              Site          2008-2010       Final DV        Final DV
                                                                  Final DV (ppb)       (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY........................  Bronx...............     36-005-0133              67              66              63
NY........................  Erie................     36-029-0005              71  ..............  ..............
NY........................  Nassau..............     36-059-0005              57  ..............  ..............
NY........................  Queens..............     36-081-0124              68  ..............  ..............
NY........................  Steuben.............     36-101-0003  ..............              14  ..............
MA........................  Hampden.............     25-013-0016              49              50              47
MA........................  Hampshire...........     25-015-4002              28              31              27
Conn......................  Fairfield...........     09-001-9003              50  ..............  ..............
Conn......................  Hartford............     09-003-1003              45              49              46
Conn......................  New Haven...........     09-009-0027  ..............              59              57
NJ........................  Bergen..............     34-003-0006              67  ..............  ..............
NJ........................  Essex...............     34-013-1003              62              64              60
NJ........................  Hudson..............     34-017-0006  ..............              65  ..............
NJ........................  Mercer..............     34-021-0005              41  ..............  ..............
NJ........................  Middlesex...........     34-023-0011              49              48              45
NJ........................  Morris..............     34-027-3001              38              38              37
NJ........................  Union...............     34-039-0004              73              71              70
PA........................  Erie................     42-049-0003              45  ..............  ..............
PA........................  Lackawanna..........     42-069-2006              44              45              41
VT........................  Chittenden..........     50-007-0014              41  ..............  ..............
VT........................  Rutland.............     50-021-0002              41  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this air quality monitoring data analysis and EPA's review
of NOX emission trends within New York, EPA does not expect
NOX emissions in New York to increase significantly
particularly in light of the New York SIP approved emission limits and
New Source Review provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DVs for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe of New York are not
shown in Table 1 since EPA determined there is no valid data.
Wherever there is no data shown in Table 1, EPA has no data for
those time periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis of the air quality monitoring data and emission
trends also supports EPA's conclusion that NO2 emissions are
not increasing significantly in the states surrounding New York and do
not appear likely to significantly increase as a result of emissions
from New York especially with the New York SIP approved provisions for
NOX. EPA therefore does

not expect monitors identified in the table above which all have DVs
well below the NO2 NAAQS to have difficulty maintaining the
NAAQS for NO2. EPA proposes to conclude that New York
emission sources are not significantly contributing to nonattainment in
another state for the NO2 NAAQS and are not likely to
interfere with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS in another
state.
    Because the 2008-2010, the 2009-2011 and also the 2010-2012
quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data identified
above for areas surrounding or bordering New York State within 50
kilometers of New York are well below the NO2 NAAQS and
because NOX emission trends from New York sources do not
appear to be increasing, EPA proposes to find that New York's federally
enforceable SIP provisions with NOX emission limits for
NOX emission sources contain adequate provisions to ensure
New York emission sources will not interfere with maintenance or
contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state with respect
to the NO2 NAAQS.
    Based upon EPA's review of the air quality data and the State's
submittal, EPA is proposing to determine that the State has met its
obligations pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.
    Element G: Emergency power: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans
to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    EPA requires that Infrastructure SIP submittals should meet the
applicable contingency plan requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H
(40 CFR 51.150 through 51.153) (``Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency
Episodes''). Subpart H requires states that have air quality control
regions identified as either Priority I, Priority IA or Priority II to
develop emergency episode contingency plans. States are required to
develop emergency episode plans for any area that has monitored and
recorded annual arithmetic mean NO2 levels greater than 100
[micro]g/m\3\ (0.06 ppm (60 ppb)).\21\ Areas which do not meet this
level are considered to be Priority III. 40 CFR 51.150(f). In
accordance with the guidance, Priority III regions are not required to
develop emergency episode plans which EPA interprets to mean the
contingency plans otherwise required under section 51.152. 40 CFR
51.152(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Section 51.150, Classification of regions for episode
plans, was last amended on July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38822) and therefore
does not include ambient concentration levels for establishing
Priority I Regions for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS that was
promulgated on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2010, air-quality monitors in New York State show that annual
arithmetic mean NO2 levels have been below the 100 [micro]g/
m\3\ (0.06 ppm (60 ppb)) threshold. In addition, since 2010, ambient
air quality levels in New York State have been below the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb. Based on certified and quality assured
air quality data, New York should be classified as a Priority III
region and, therefore, emergency episode plans for NO2 are
not required.
    However, in general and for the NO2 standard, the
section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements are addressed by New York's ECL,
Articles 3 and 19, which are implemented through 6 NYCRR Part 207,
``Control Measures for Air Pollution Episodes.'' Among other things, 6
NYCRR Part 207 requires persons who own a significant air contamination
source to submit a proposed episode action plan to the NYSDEC
Commissioner, and enable the Commissioner to designate air pollution
episodes which trigger the action plans. Pursuant to Part 207.3(a), the
NYSDEC Commissioner shall have on file and make available the criteria
used in determining the need to designate episodes. The NYSDEC
maintains an ``Episode Action Plan'' with guidelines and protocols/
criteria to be followed in case of an air pollution emergency. The
NYSDEC's Episode Action Plan has been updated to reflect the
Significant Harm Levels (SHLs) that address the 1-hour NO2
NAAQS proposed by EPA on July 15, 2009. Therefore, EPA proposes that
New York has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve New York's submittal as fully meeting
the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 primary NO2
NAAQS for all section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements, as follows:
(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    EPA is not acting on New York's submittal as it relates to
nonattainment provisions, the NSR program required by part D in section
110(a)(2)(C) and the measures for attainment required by section
110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs because the State's
infrastructure SIP submittal does not include nonattainment
requirements and EPA will act on them when, if necessary, they are
submitted.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register, or by
submitting comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery
or courier following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 21, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2014-09982 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself (Robert H. Haltom), Robert L. Haltom (father), Lora J. Haltom (mother), and Angie L. Richards (sister), I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me and my immediate family, as consumers of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited as I work 40 hours per week. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life and the lives of my beloved family. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8728-8729]
[DOCID:fr27fe07-71]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8281-6; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0039]

Draft Toxicological Review of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: In Support
of the Summary Information in the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Peer-Review Workshop and Public Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and
Education (ORISE), under an Interagency agreement between the
Department of Energy and EPA, will convene an independent panel of
experts and organize and conduct an external peer-review workshop to
review the external review draft document titled, Toxicological Review
of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: In Support of Summary Information on the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (NCEA-S-1606). The EPA also
is announcing a public comment period for the draft document. EPA
intends to consider comments and recommendations from the public and
the expert panel meeting when EPA finalizes the draft document.
    The public comment period and the external peer-review workshop are
separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the document. In addition to consideration by
EPA, all public comments submitted in accordance with this notice will
also be forwarded to ORISE for consideration by the external peer-
review panel prior to the workshop.
    EPA is releasing this draft document solely for the purpose of pre-
dissemination peer review under applicable information quality
guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It
does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency
policy or determination.
    ORISE invites the public to register to attend this workshop as
observers. In addition, ORISE invites the public to give brief oral
comments at the workshop regarding the draft document under review. The
draft document and EPA's peer-review charge are available via the
Internet on NCEA's home page under the Recent Additions and the Data
and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. When finalizing the

draft document, EPA intends to consider ORISE's report of the comments
and recommendations from the external peer-review workshop and any
public comments that EPA receives in accordance with this notice.

DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will begin on April 20, 2007, at
9 a.m. and end at 3 p.m. The public comment period begins February 27,
2007, and ends April 13, 2007. Technical comments should be in writing
and must be received by EPA by April 13, 2007. Comments from the public
received by this date will be submitted to the panel prior to the
workshop.

ADDRESSES: The peer-review workshop will be held at the Sheraton
Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202.
ORISE is organizing, convening, and conducting the peer-review
workshop. To attend the workshop, register by April 12, 2007, via the
Internet at http://www.orau.gov/trichloroethane. You may also register

by calling ORISE at<PHONE_NUMBER>, sending a facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or sending an e-mail to Margaret Lyday<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You must
register by April 12, 2007, if you wish to provide brief oral comments
at the workshop.
    The draft Toxicological Review of 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: In Support
of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
is available via the Internet on the National Center for Environmental
Assessment's (NCEA) home page under the Recent Additions and the Data
and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of

paper copies are available from the Technical Information Staff, NCEA-
W; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you are
requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing address, and
the document title. Copies are not available from ORISE.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov
, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/

courier. Please follow the detailed instructions

as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the peer-review
workshop, contact Margaret Lyday, ORISE, P.O. Box 117, MS 17, Oak
Ridge, TN 37831-0117,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

    For information on the public comment period, contact the Office of
Environmental Information Docket; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
202-566-1753; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions about the document, contact Susan Rieth, IRIS
Staff, National Center for Environmental Assessment, (8601D), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202-
564-1532; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Information About the Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS)

    IRIS is a database that contains potential adverse human health
effects information that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure
to specific chemical substances found in the environment. The database
(available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/iris) contains

qualitative and quantitative health effects information for more than
500 chemical substances that may be used to support the first two steps
(hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of a risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, the database
provides oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference
concentrations (RfCs) for chronic health effects, and oral slope
factors and inhalation unit risks for carcinogenic effects. Combined
with specific exposure information, government and private entities can
use IRIS data to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and
there will be a limited time for oral comments from the public. Please
let ORISE know if you wish to make comments during the workshop prior
to the meeting by registering on the Web site at http://www.orau.gov/trichloroethane
 and indicating your intent to make oral comments. Space

is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis.

III. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0039 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-
566-1752.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    If you provide comments by e-mail or hand delivery, please submit
one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three
copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2007-0039. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

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

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

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

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

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

Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: February 20, 2007.
Peter W. Preuss,
Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E7-3316 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P