[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78169-78170]
[DOCID:fr28de06-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-156]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated
Rate Filing

December 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 15, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing and approval a
negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and BP Energy Company. CEGT
states that it has entered into an agreement to provide firm
transportation service to this shipper under Rate Schedule FT and
requests the Commission accept and approve the transaction under which
transportation service will commence upon the ``in-service'' date
following completion of certain Line CP facilities.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22220 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


70012 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations If the EPA receives adverse written comment, we will publish a final rule informing the public that this rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA does not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on these actions must do so at this time.

VI. Administrative Requirements Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a `` significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Effect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Pub. L. 104   4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). Under section 307( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. ( See section 307( b)( 2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: October 15, 2002. David A. Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52   [ AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P   Indiana 2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph ( c)( 153) to read as follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * * ( c) * * * ( 153) On April 30, 2002 and September 6, 2002, Indiana submitted revised particulate matter regulations for Union Tank Car's railcar manufacturing facility in Lake County, Indiana. The submittal amends 326 IAC 6   1   10.1. The revisions consist of relaxing the limits for the grit blaster. The new limits are 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot and 9.9 pounds per hour. ( i) Incorporation by reference. Amendments to Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1: Nonattainment Area Limitations, Section 10.1: Lake County PM10 emission requirements. Filed with the Secretary of State on July 26, 2002 and effective on August 25, 2002. Published in 25 Indiana Register 4076 on September 1, 2002.

[ FR Doc. 02   29473 Filed 11   19   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2002   0291; FRL   7277   3]

Bacillus Cereus Strain BPO1; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 on raw and processed food when applied/ used as a VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1 70013 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations foliar applied biological plant growth regulator intended to promote root mass growth, earlier fruit initiation, increased fruit retention, and increased nutrient utilization. Micro Flow Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Bacillus cereus strain BPO1.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 20, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0291, must be received on or before January 21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit IX. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robyn Rose, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9581; e mail address: rose. robyn@ epa. gov.

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. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

  Industry ( NACIS 111, 112, 311, 32532), e. g., Crop Production, Animal Production, Food Manufacturing, Pesticide Manufacturing. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2002   0291. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptsfrs/ home/ guidelin. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings In the Federal Register of November 21, 2001 ( 66 FR 58481) ( FRL   6802   1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( e), as amended by FQPA ( Public Law 104   170), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition ( PP 1F6324) by Micro Flow Company, P. O. Box 5948 Lakeland, FL 33807   5948. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Micro Flow Company. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1181 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Bacillus cereus strain BPO1.

III. Risk Assessment New section 408( c)( 2)( A)( i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for 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( c)( 2)( A)( ii) of the 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 of the FFDCA ( b)( 2)( C) 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. . . .'' Additionally, section 408( b)( 2)( D) of the FFDCA requires that the Agency consider `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

IV. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Acute mammalian toxicity/ pathogenicity studies via oral, dermal, inhalation, eye, intratracheal, and VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1 70014 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations intravenous routes were conducted with Bacillus cereus strain BPO1. No pathogenicity was observed. BPO1 was also tested for entero toxin emetic toxin production; no toxins were detected. Bacillus cereus has been implicated in nosocomial infections in rare instances and in food poisoning incidents. In the ELISA Analysis of Enterotoxin data submitted, there was no evidence of diarrhoeal type enterotoxin production in the culture filtrates of Bacillus cereus strain BOP1 or the end use product. In a blood agar hemolysis assay conducted with BPO1, weak alpha hemolysis was observed. Based on the results of the studies in this unit, subchronic, reproductive, teratology, chronic, and mutagenicity studies were not deemed necessary. 1. Acute oral toxicity/ pathogenicity ( OPPTS 870.1100; 152A   10 and 152B   10; MRIDs 4417737   05 and 441773   06). In the acute oral toxicity test, five male and five female rats were treated with a split dose, ( 10 milliliters/ kilograms/ dose) ( mL/ kg) for a total of 5,000 milligrams ( mg)/ kg of Bacillus cereus strain BP01; the second dose administered 1 hour after the first dose. Rats were weighed and observed for mortality or abnormalities for 14 days. No abnormalities were noted in body weight or weight gain throughout the study or upon necropsy. The oral lethal dose ( LD) 50 Bacillus cereus strain BP01 was determined to be greater than 5,000 mg/ kg body weight. In the acute oral toxicity/ pathogenicity test, 15 males and 15 females received a dose of 1.23 x 108 colony forming units ( CFU) of the test substance by oral gavage; nine males and nine females were treated with 1.23 x 108 CFU killed test substance ( by steam sterilization). Rats were weighed on days 0, 3, 7, 14, and 18 and signs of toxicity were observed daily. Randomly sampled rats from each sex and each test group were sacrificed on days 0, 3, 7, 14, and 18 and examined for any macroscopic abnormalities. Samples of the kidneys, liver, spleen, and stomach as well as feces were homogenized and plated to determine the number of typical Bacillus cereus colonies after incubation at 30 0C for at least 18 hours. No clinical sign were noted throughout the study and no abnormalities were noted in any animal at necropsy. Two males displayed a loss in body weight from day 0 to 3 and five females lost weight from day 7 to 14. No other abnormalities were noted in body weights or weight gain. Bacillus cereus strain BP01 is not toxic, pathogenic or infective when 1 x 108 CFU was administered orally. A distinct clearance pattern was observed throughout the study. 2. Acute dermal toxicity ( OPPTS 870.1200; 152A   11; MRID 441773   07). Five male and five female rabbits were given a dose of 4.4 x 1010 CFU ( 2 grams ( g)) dermally for 24 hours and observed after dosing for signs of toxicity and dermal irritation for 14 days. No clinical signs, except dermal irritation, were noted during the study and no abnormalities were noted upon necropsy. Two males and five females displayed a loss in body weight from day 0 to day 7. All animals displayed a weight gain through the end of the study. All males and females showed slight to well defined redness through day 4; very slight erythema was present in up to three males and three females through day 11. Dermal irritation was no longer apparent by day 12. Slight signs of edema were apparent in two males on day 3. Edema was no longer present by day 4. The LD50 of Bacillus cereus strain BP01 is greater than 2 grams per animal. Mild to moderate dermal irritation was noted and was no longer present by day 13. 3. Acute intratracheal toxicity/ pathogenicity ( OPPTS 885.3150; 152A   12; MRID 441773   08). Fifty female and fifty male rats received a single dose of 7 x 107 ( males), or 9.33 x 107 CFU ( females) of the test substance in a volume of 0.5 mL by intratracheal administration; fifty females and fifty males were treated with the same concentration of killed test substance ( by steam sterilization); an additional fifty males and fifty females served as controls. Rats were weighed weekly and observed for signs of toxicity daily. Ten rats of each sex from each group were sacrificed on days 0, 7, 14, 21, and 36. Animals were examined for macroscopic abnormalities by necropsy. Lungs were evaluated by histopathological examination. Samples of the kidneys, liver, spleen, brain, mesenteric lymph nodes, blood, lungs, and caecum were homogenized, plated, and incubated for at least 18 hours then examined for typical Bacillus cereus colonies. Body weight losses were noted in females from the test substance group, one during the first, second and third weeks. No other abnormalities were noted in body weight or weight gain throughout the study. In the group treated with the test substance, three females displayed a rough hair coat, two females showed signs of labored respiration, and one female had hunched posture on day 0. Clinical signs were no longer apparent by day 2. Each treatment group had three males and females displaying mottled, dark red lungs on day 0. Red to tan lesions remained on the majority of animals through day 21. Bacillus cereus strain BP01 is not toxic, pathogenic or infective to rats at an intratracheal dose of either 7 x 108 or 9.33 x 108 CFU. A slow but typical clearance pattern was observed; slow clearance in the lung with distinct clearance pattern noted in the liver and spleen. The lesions present in the histopathology sections in both the killed and live test substance animals indicate an inflammatory response to the treatment due to the presence of particulate material. 4. Acute intravenous toxicity ( OPPTS 885.3200; 152A   13; MRID 441773   09). Five male and five female rates were intravenously injected with either 0.5 mL of Bacillus cereus, 0.5 mL of the killed test substance, or kept as a naive control. The rats were weighed before initial dosing and weekly thereafter. Animals were observed for clinical signs twice daily for 14 days. All rats were examined by necropsy for any macroscopic abnormalities at the end of the study. One female displayed a loss in body weight from day 0 to day 17. No other abnormalities were noted in body weight or weight gain throughout the study. No clinical signs were reported by the testing facilty and no abnormalities were noted upon necropsy. Although Bacillus cereus strain BP01 is not toxic to rats at an intravenous dose of 2.0 x 107 CFU, the registrant failed to submit the clearance portion of the study. However, this study does not need to be repeated because the oral and intratracheal studies demonstrated distinct clearance patterns. 5. Primary eye irritation ( OPPTS; 870.2400; 152A   14; MRID 441773   10). Three male and three female, young adult, New Zealnad White rabbits were given a single dose of 0.1g ( equivalent to 2.2 x 109 CFU) of the microbial pest control agent ( MPCA) in the everted lower right eyelid of each animal. The eye was gently held together for 2 seconds to prevent a loss of material. The left eye served as the control for each animal. The Draize Method was used to score ocular irritation and lesions at 1 hour, and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 days post dosing. A 2% fluorescein solution and ultraviolet light was used after 24 hours to evaluate corneal epithelial damage. Slight to moderate redness, chemosis, and occasional discharge was observed in all 6 animals within 1 hour post dosing. Clinical signs were no longer apparent by day 3. No abnormalities were observed in any control eye during the study. The primary irritation scores at 24 hours post dosing was 4.8 when a 0.1g ( 2 x 109 CFU) ocular dose was administered.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1 70015 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Ocular irritation was no longer present by day 3. 6. Immunotoxicity ( OPPTS 880.3800). Immune response, teratogenicity, virulence enhancement, and mammalian mutagenicity ( 40 CFR 158.740( c)( 2)( vi) through ( xv), were not required since survival, replication, infectivity, toxicity, or persistence of the microbial agent was not observed in the test animals treated in the Tier I infectivity tests. 7. Hypersensitivity ( OPPTS 870.2600; 152   15). Incidents of hypersensitivity must be reported to the Agency in a timely manner. There have been no reports of incidents of hypersensitivity to Bacillus cereus since it was registered.

V. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings ( residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure 1. Food. While the suggested use pattern may result in dietary exposure with possible residues on food and feed, negligible risk is expected for both the general population, infants and children. Submitted acute toxicology tests confirm that based upon the use sites, use patterns, application method, use rates, low exposure, and lack of significant toxicology concerns, the potential risks, if any, to humans are considered negligible, therefore an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is warranted. Acute exposure could occur from the proposed outdoor use sites but would be very low because of the low application rates of less than 48 fluid ounces of BP01/ acre/ year in cotton and less than 32 fluid ounces of BP01/ acre/ year in soybean. Considering the low application rates, lack of toxicity/ pathogenicity, ubiquitous nature and natural occurrence of Bacillius cereus, no residue data were required. 2. Drinking water exposure. The microorganism Bacillus cereus is ubiquitous in many soils throughout the world. Bacillus cereus is not known as an aquatic bacterium and therefore is not expected to proliferate in aquatic habitats. The potential exists for Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 to enter ground water or other drinking water sources, after application. Both percolation through soil and municipal treatment of drinking water would reduce the possibility of exposure to Bacillus cereus through drinking water. Moreover, Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 is not considered to be a risk to drinking water. The Agency has no drinking water exposure concerns, because exposure is minimal to non existent and the demonstrated lack of toxicity or pathogenicity for the Bacillus cereus Strain BP01 microbe.

B. Other Non Occupational Exposure The potential of non dietary exposures to Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 pesticide residues for the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely since this is only an agricultural use pesticide. The Agency believes that the potential aggregate exposure, derived from dermal and inhalation exposure via mixing, loading, and applying Bacillus cereus strain BPO1, should fall well below the currently tested microbial safety levels. 1. Dermal exposure. Dermal exposure via the skin would be the primary route of exposure for mixer/ loader applications. Unbroken skin is a natural barrier to microbial invasion of the human body. Dermal absorption could occur only if the skin were cut, if the microbe were a pathogen equipped with mechanisms for entry through or infection of the skin, or if metabolites were produced that could be dermally absorbed. Submitted acute dermal toxicity data confirmed a lack of dermal toxicity and mild to moderate dermal irritation was only observed until day 13 of the study. 2. Inhalation exposure. Inhalation would be the primary route of exposure for mixer/ loader applications. Because the pulmonary study showed no adverse effects, the risks anticipated for the route of exposure are considered minimal.

VI. Cumulative Effects The Agency has considered available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children of such residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity to this, the Agency is confident that there will not be cumulative effects from the registration of this product VII. Determination of Safety for U. S. Population, Infants and Children 1. U. S. population. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the U. S. population from exposure to Bacillus cereus. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the very low levels of mammalian toxicity ( no toxicity at the maximum doses tested, Toxicity Categories III and IV for irritation) associated with Bacillus cereus strain BP01 and the history of safe use of Bacillus cereus. 2. Infants and children. FFDCA section 408( b)( 2)( C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of exposure ( safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure ( safety) will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure ( safety) are often referred to as uncertainty ( safety) factors. A battery of acute toxicity/ pathogenicity studies is considered sufficient by the Agency to perform a risk assessment for microbial pesticides. Other strains of Bacillus cereus have been implicated in nosocomial infections in rare instances and in food poisoning incidents. In the ELISA Analysis of Enterotoxin test data submitted there was no evidence of diarrhoeal type enterotoxin production in the culture filtration of Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 or the end use product. Data relating to the post application die off of Bacillus cereus species vs. background soil population counts demonstrated that this organism is very stable in the soil and rhizosphere. Also, for food use of microbial pesticides, the acute toxicity/ pathogenicity studies have allowed for the conclusion that an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is appropriate and adequate to protect human health, including that of infants and children.

VIII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) `` may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.'' Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there is no VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1 70016 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP). When the appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, Bacillus cereus may be subjected to additional screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Based on available data, no endocrine system related effects have been identified with consumption of Bacillus cereus strain BP01. It is a naturally occurring bacteria. To date, there is no evidence to suggest that Bacillus cereus affects the immune system, functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disruptor.

B. Analytical Method( s) The Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation based upon the lack of mammalian toxicity of Bacillus cereus and the lack of exposure with the plant growth regulator use pattern. For the same reasons, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purpose for Bacillus cereus.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level There are no Codex harmonization consideration since there is currently no codex tolerance for Bacillus cereus residues.

IX. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing? You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2002   0291 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January 21, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by telephone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0291, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing? A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1 70017 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2002 / Rules and Regulations the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

X. Regulatory Assessment Requirements This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under section 408( d) of the FFDCA 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408( d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications '' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

XI. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule 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: October 31, 2002. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

Authority: 21 U. S. C. 321( q), 346( a) and 374.

2. Section 180.1181 is revised to read as follows:

§ 180.1181 Bacillus cereus strain BPO1; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus cereus strain BPO1 in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied/ used in accordance with label directions. [ FR Doc. 02   29331 Filed 11   19   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [ DA 02   2231, MB Docket No. 02   223, RM   10520]

Digital Television Broadcast Service; Avalon, CA AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Pappas Southern California License, LLC., and pursuant to Section 531 of the Public Health, Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Reponse Act of 2002, allots DTV channel 47c at Avalon, California. DTV channel 47c can be allotted to Avalon at the VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 14: 01 Nov 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20NOR1. SGM 20NOR1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23303-23306]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09581]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0609; FRL-9909-97-OAR]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the State Implementation Plan submittals from Alaska to address
the interstate transport provisions of the Clean Air Act in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone,
and 2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Clean Air Act
requires that each State Implementation Plan contain adequate
provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain adverse air
quality effects in other states. The EPA has determined that Alaska's
State Implementation Plan submittals on March 29, 2011, and July 7,
2012, contain adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions in
Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 fine particulate matter, 2008 ozone, and
2008 lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0609, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10 9th Floor Mailroom,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose,
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0609. The 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 the
disclosure of which 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate
Transport
    B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory Actions
    C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport
II. State Submittals
III. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Interstate Transport

    In recent years, the EPA revised the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), ozone, and lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA revised the 1997 24-hour primary and
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).
Subsequently, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary
8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 to 0.075 parts per million (73 FR
16436, March 12, 2008). Finally, the EPA revised the level of the
primary and secondary Pb NAAQS from 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15 [micro]g/
m\3\ (73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008).
    The interstate transport provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called ``good neighbor'' provisions)
require each state to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
prohibits emissions that will have certain adverse air quality effects
in other states. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four distinct
elements related to the impacts of air pollutants transported across
state lines. In this action, the EPA is addressing the first two
elements of this section, specified at CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),\1\ for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and
2008 Pb NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the interstate transport SIP provision in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interference with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that
each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that each SIP prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.

B. EPA Interstate Transport Regulatory Actions

    The EPA has addressed the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions.\2\ The EPA published the
final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (Transport Rule) to address the
first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern
portion of the United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(August 8, 2011, 76 FR 48208). The Transport Rule was intended to

replace the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was
judicially remanded.\3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit issued a decision vacating the Transport Rule. See EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The court
also ordered the EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. The
United States Supreme Court granted the petitions of the United States
and others and agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision. Oral
argument before the Supreme Court was held on December 10, 2013. Unless
the EME Homer City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the
Supreme Court, the EPA intends to act in accordance with the D.C.
Circuit opinion in EME Homer City.\4\ The State of Alaska was not
covered by either CAIR or the Transport Rule, and the EPA made no
determinations in either rule regarding whether emissions from sources
in Alaska significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. Thus,
although the D.C. Circuit decision affects whether or not the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP is considered a required SIP submission, the
decision has no direct impact on EPA's evaluation of Alaska's SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and
Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. For more information on CAIR, see
the July 30, 2012 proposal for Arizona regarding interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (77 FR 44551, 44552).
    \4\ In accordance with the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer
City, the EPA at this time is not treating the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
SIP submissions from Alaska for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008
ozone and 2008 Pb NAAQS as required SIP submissions. See EME Homer
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F .3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert.
granted, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4801 (2013). Regardless of whether a
particular SIP submission is considered ``required,'' section
110(k)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to act on the submission.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to act on the portion of Alaska's SIP
submissions that address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance on Interstate Transport

    The EPA has issued two guidance documents relevant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 25, 2009, the EPA issued the
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) NAAQS.'' On October
14, 2011, the EPA issued the ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS.'' The EPA has
not to date issued guidance related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As discussed below, Alaska's analyses
of its SIP with respect to the statutory requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are consistent with the EPA's September 25, 2009,
and October 14, 2011, guidance. The discussion below describes how
Alaska's submittals have addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

II. State Submittals

    On March 29, 2011, the State submitted a SIP to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The State addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by
providing information supporting the conclusion that emissions from
Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in another state. The State's submittal noted that Alaska's
southern-most border is separated from the nearest nonattainment areas
in the State of Washington by over 600 miles. Specifically, the nearest
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in Tacoma (Pierce
County), Washington, and the nearest 2008 ozone nonattainment area is
located in Chico (Butte County), California. The Yukon Territory and
the Province of British Columbia, Canada, are located between these
nonattainment areas and the border of Alaska. The State's submittal
also stated that the Municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks North
Star Borough, which have the highest emissions of PM2.5,
ozone and PM2.5 precursors in Alaska, are located over 1400
miles from the nearest nonattainment areas. In addition, the State's
submittal pointed to aggregate manmade PM2.5 and ozone
precursor levels that are minimal relative to national levels. A state-
wide emissions inventory showed that facilities in Alaska make up only
0.1 percent of the total PM2.5 emissions in the United
States. Similarly, precursor emissions to PM2.5 (e.g.,
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides) and precursor emissions to ozone
(e.g., volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) from facilities
in Alaska make up less than 0.2 percent of United States' emissions for
those pollutants. The State's submittal also stated that in Alaska, the
regional, predominant low pressure wind patterns emanate from the Gulf
of Alaska in the west and travel inland towards the east, circulating
in a counterclockwise direction. These predominant low pressure wind
patterns would not generally be expected to transport air pollutants
from Alaska south to the States of Washington or California. The
State's submittal concluded that emissions from Alaska do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS in another state.
    On July 7, 2012, the State submitted a SIP to address the 2008 Pb
NAAQS (Pb Interstate Transport SIP). The State's Pb Interstate
Transport SIP specifically addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
stated that there are no designated Pb nonattainment areas in Alaska or
the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). Potential
sources of atmospheric Pb in Alaska are due primarily to the burning of
aviation gasoline, which contains tetraethyl-lead, in piston-engine
aircraft. The State's submittal referenced Pb monitoring conducted in
the State and discussed the large geographic distance of Alaska from
neighboring states, and predominant low pressure wind patterns which
would not generally be expected to transport pollutants long distances
from Alaska to neighboring states. The State concluded that emissions
of Pb from Alaska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state.
    As stated in the EPA's October 14, 2011, guidance, the EPA believes
that the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from
experiencing the same travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5
or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb
concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a source
in a state to emit Pb in a localized area in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, the EPA anticipates that this would be
a rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries. The EPA's experience with initial Pb designations
suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tons per year or that are
located more than two miles from a state border generally appear
unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in another state.
The only source of Pb in Alaska that exceeds an emission rate of 0.5
tons per year is the Red Dog Mine near Kotzebue, which is over 1,000
miles from the border of the nearest state.

III. Proposed Action

    Based on the State's submittals, the EPA concludes the State has
sufficiently

demonstrated that emissions from Alaska do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, or 2008 Pb NAAQS in another state.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the March 29, 2011, and July
7, 2012, submittals from the State of Alaska to address the interstate
transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, and 2008 Pb NAAQS. This action is being
taken under CAA section 110.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 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, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 10, 2014.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-09581 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P