[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 223 (Monday, November 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70758-70765]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0265; FRL-9781-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Division of Air
Quality (NCDAQ), via a letter dated December 9, 2021. The SIP revision
includes the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the North Carolina portion
(hereinafter referred to as the Metrolina

Area) of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Charlotte NC-SC 1997
8-hour NAAQS Area''). The Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area is
comprised of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan, and Union
Counties and a portion of Iredell County (i.e., Coddle Creek and
Davidson Townships) in North Carolina; and the Rock Hill Metropolitan
Planning Organization boundary in York County, South Carolina. EPA is
proposing to approve the Metrolina Area LMP because it provides for the
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Metrolina Area
through the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period
in 2034. The effect of this action would be to make certain commitments
related to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Metrolina
Area federally enforceable as part of the North Carolina SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2022-0265 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9029. Ms. Spann can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the Metrolina Area LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that
was submitted by NCDAQ as a revision to the North Carolina SIP on
December 9, 2021. In 2004, the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area,
which includes the Metrolina Area, was designated as nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, in 2013, after a clean data
determination and EPA's approval of a maintenance plan, the Metrolina
Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
See 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) and 78 FR 72036 (December 2, 2013
    The Metrolina Area LMP is designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS within the Metrolina Area through the end of the second 10-
year portion of the maintenance period beyond redesignation. EPA is
proposing to approve the plan because it meets all applicable
requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A.
    As a general matter, the Metrolina Area LMP relies on the same
control measures and contingency provisions to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period
as the maintenance plan submitted by NCDAQ for the first 10-year
period.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and in adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma and other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/decision_to_retain_ozone_standards_fact_sheet_final2.pdf, and 27 FR
2938 (January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), or 120 parts
per billion (ppb), averaged over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202
(February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the
ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set. EPA
determined that the 8-hour NAAQS would be more protective of human
health, especially for children and adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Charlotte
NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, which consists of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union Counties and a portion of Iredell
County (i.e., Coddle Creek and Davidson Townships) in North Carolina;
and the Rock Hill Metropolitan Planning Organization boundary in York
County,

South Carolina, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
designation became effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR 23858 (April
30, 2004).
    Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA designated areas as unclassifiable/
attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Area \3\ (hereinafter referred to as
the Charlotte NC-SC 2008 NAAQS Area) was designated as nonattainment
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and classified as a marginal
nonattainment area. This designation became effective on July 20, 2012.
See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill NC-SC Area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS consists of portions of Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell,
Lincoln, Rowan and Union Counties and the entirety of Mecklenburg
County in North Carolina, and a portion of York County, South
Carolina, which excludes the Catawba Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, on November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The entire states of North Carolina and South
Carolina were designated attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, with an effective date of January 16, 2018. See 82 FR
54232.
    A state may submit a request that EPA redesignate a nonattainment
area that is attaining a NAAQS to attainment, and, if the area has met
other required criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,
EPA may approve the redesignation request.\4\ One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA
section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans, beginning with a 1992 memo referred to as the
Calcagni memo.\5\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may generally
demonstrate maintenance in one of two ways: by either performing air
quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission
rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS, or by showing that
projected future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not
exceed the level of emissions generated during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See Calcagni
memo at page 9. EPA clarified in three subsequent guidance memos that
certain areas can meet the CAA section 175A requirement to provide for
maintenance by showing that the area is unlikely to violate the NAAQS
in the future, using information such as the area's design value \6\
being well below the standard and the area having a historically stable
design value.\7\ EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this
streamlined demonstration as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo, available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/procedures-processing-requests-redesignate-areas-attainment).
    \6\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone area is the
highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \7\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, OAQPS, dated
November 16, 1994; ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS,
dated October 6, 1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman,
OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these guidance memoranda can
be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for LMPs and have approved LMPs have
rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS. As
noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must still
submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the Calcagni
memo, including: an attainment emissions inventory, provisions for the
continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring network,
verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan in the
event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state seeking an
LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a revision
to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures. While the
LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect to certain
NAAQS,\8\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section 175A to
other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the previous
guidance memos.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The prior memos addressed: unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment areas for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
    \9\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (Approval of the
second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve the Metrolina Area LMP
because the State has made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP
guidance, that the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area's ozone
concentrations are well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been
historically stable, and that it has met the other maintenance plan
requirements. NCDAQ submitted this LMP for the Metrolina Area to
fulfill the second maintenance plan requirement in the Act. EPA's
evaluation of the Metrolina Area LMP is presented below.
    In November of 2011 and in March of 2013, NCDAQ submitted to EPA a
request to redesignate the Metrolina Area of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997
8-hour NAAQS Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
submittal included a plan to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in the Metrolina Area through 2024 as a revision to the
North Carolina SIP. EPA approved North Carolina's Metrolina Area
maintenance plan and the State's request to redesignate the North
Carolina portion of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 NAAQS Area to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS effective January 2, 2014.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 78 FR 72036 (December 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

plans under CAA section 175A(b). See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6,
2015).
    In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) vacated the EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, second maintenance plans
were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. South Coast, 882
F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with these ``orphan
maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS must submit
maintenance plans for the second maintenance period. Accordingly, on
December 9, 2021, North Carolina submitted a second 10-year maintenance
plan covering the Metrolina Area that provides for attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2034.
    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, NCDAQ
chose the LMP option for the development of its second 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS maintenance plan covering the Metrolina Area.

III. North Carolina's SIP Submittal

    As mentioned above, on December 9, 2021, NCDAQ submitted the
Metrolina Area LMP as a revision to the North Carolina SIP. The
submittal includes the LMP, air quality data, emissions inventory
information, and appendices. Appendices to the plan include average
2017 summer day anthropogenic emissions by county and sector and
documentation of notice, hearing, and public participation prior to
adoption of the plan by NCDAQ on December 9, 2021. The Metrolina Area
LMP does not include any additional emission reduction measures but
relies on the same emission reduction strategy as the first 10-year
maintenance plan that provides for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2024. Specifically, the measures upon which the
second 10-year LMP for the Metrolina Area relies include the foundation
control program, which consists of federal and state control measures
that ensure continued maintenance of the NAAQS, as well as supporting
programs such as the Air Awareness Program, Advance Program, Grant
Program, Volkswagen Settlement, and EPA Consent Decree with Duke Energy
Corporation. It also relies on continued implementation of federal
measures (e.g., Tier 2 and 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel
Standards,\11\ Utility New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),\12\
NOX SIP Call,\13\ and interstate transport rules such as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) \14\ and CSAPR Update).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014).
    \12\ See 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).
    \13\ See 63 FR 57355 (October 27, 1998).
    \14\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \15\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA has reviewed the Metrolina Area's LMP, which is designed to
maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Metrolina Area through
the end of the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as required under
CAA Section 175A(b). The following is a summary of EPA's interpretation
of the section 175A requirements \16\ and EPA's evaluation of how each
requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Calcagni memo at pages 7-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The Metrolina LMP includes an ozone attainment emissions inventory for
the Metrolina Area that reflects typical summer day emissions in 2017.
Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for 2017 contained in this
LMP.

 Table 1--Average Summer Day 2017 Anthropogenic NOX and VOC Emissions by
                      Sector for the Metrolina Area
                            [Tons/summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Sector                         NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire....................................           0.028           0.269
Nonpoint................................           0.267           2.266
Nonroad.................................           0.436           0.451
Onroad..................................           2.184           1.376
Point...................................           0.072           0.912
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           2.987           5.274
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Attainment Emissions Inventory section of the Metrolina Area's
LMP describes the methods, models, and assumptions used to develop the
attainment inventory. As described in the Emissions Inventory section
(Section 3.1) of the LMP, NCDAQ generally relied on the 2017 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI).\17\ The Metrolina Area's maintenance
inventory is comprised of anthropogenic sources. Naturally occurring,
or biogenic, emissions are not included in the inventory, as these
emissions are outside the State's purview. Because much of the EPA's
2017 NEI is compiled at the county level, but the Metrolina Area
includes only a subset of the townships in relevant counties, the NCDAQ
developed methodologies to estimate the proportion of county emissions
occurring in the maintenance area. When available, these methodologies
utilize locational information; otherwise, they assume population as a
surrogate indicator of emissions activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. EPA, 2017 Emissions Modeling Data downloaded from
ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/emismod/2017/reports, accessed August 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
NCDAQ to develop the inventory, as well as our review of the 2017
summer emissions data, EPA proposes to find that the Metrolina Area's
LMP includes

a comprehensive, reasonably accurate inventory of actual ozone
precursor emissions in attainment year 2017 and proposes to conclude
that this is acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent maintenance
plan under CAA section 175A(b).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered satisfied
in an LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of evidence
indicating that air quality in the area is well below the level of the
NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be stable, and
that the probability of the area experiencing a violation over the
second 10-year maintenance period is low.\18\ These criteria are
evaluated below with regard to the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS
Area as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Footnote 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Concentration Levels
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(i.e., the design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed
0.08 ppm. Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or
below. At the time of submission, EPA evaluated quality assured and
certified 2018-2020 monitoring data \19\ and determined that the design
value for the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area was 0.067 ppm, or
80 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (measured at the
Garinger High School Monitor (AQS ID: 37-119-0041) and the University
Meadows monitor (AQS ID: 37-119-0046) in Mecklenburg County, NC).
Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most recent
air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well below
the NAAQS (e.g., below 85 percent of the NAAQS, or in this case below
0.071 ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of prevention of significant deterioration requirements
and any control measures already in the SIP and that Federal measures
will remain in place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance
period, absent a showing consistent with section 110(l) that such
measures are not necessary to assure maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report (follow the ``Ozone Design Values 2020 (xlsx)''
hyperlink, then open ``Table4. County Status'' in the spreadsheet
and scroll down to North Carolina).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2a and 2b present the 2003-2021 design values for each
monitor in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area. As shown in
these tables, all sites have been below the level of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS since the area was redesignated to attainment, and the most
recent design value is below the level of 85 percent of the NAAQS,
consistent with prior LMP guidance. The 2019-2021 design value is 0.066
ppm or 79 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (measured
at the Garinger High School Monitor (AQS ID: 37-119-0041) and the
University Meadows monitor (AQS ID: 37-119-0046) in Mecklenburg County,
NC).

               Table 2a--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2003-2011 Design Values (ppm) at Monitoring Sites in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 NAAQS Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          2001-    2002-    2003-    2004-    2005-    2006-    2007-    2008-    2009-
          AQS site ID                 Site name          County name     2003 DV  2004 DV  2005 DV  2006 DV  2007 DV  2008 DV  2009 DV  2010 DV  2011 DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37-109-0004....................  Crouse............  Lincoln...........    0.092    0.086    0.081    0.079    0.083    0.082    0.076    0.072    0.071
37-119-0041....................  Garinger..........  Mecklenburg.......    0.096    0.091    0.086    0.088    0.090    0.089    0.082    0.078    0.079
37-119-0046....................  University Meadows  Mecklenburg.......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
37-119-1005....................  Arrowood..........  Mecklenburg.......    0.084    0.081    0.078    0.080    0.083    0.079    0.076    0.073    0.076
37-119-1009....................  County Line.......  Cabarrus..........    0.098    0.092    0.087    0.088    0.093    0.094    0.086    0.082    0.078
37-159-0021....................  Rockwell CSS......  Rowan.............    0.100    0.094    0.088    0.083    0.089    0.088    0.083    0.077    0.075
37-159-0022....................  Enochville........  Rowan.............    0.099    0.091    0.085    0.085    0.090    0.088    0.083    0.077    0.076
37-179-0003....................  Monroe............  Union.............    0.088    0.085    0.079    0.078    0.081    (\e\)    0.076    0.072    0.070
45-091-8801....................  Catawba Longhouse.  Catawba Indian      .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                      Nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Table 2b--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2012-2021 Design Values (ppm) at Monitoring Sites in the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 NAAQS Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2010-    2011-    2012-    2013-    2014-    2015-    2016-    2017-    2018-    2019-
         AQS site ID             Site name       County name    2012 DV  2013 DV  2014 DV  2015 DV  2016 DV  2017 DV  2018 DV  2019 DV  2020 DV  2021 DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37-109-0004.................  Crouse.........  Lincoln (NC)...    0.075    0.072    0.068    0.065    0.067    0.067    0.065    0.064    0.060    0.061
37-119-0041.................  Garinger.......  Mecklenburg        0.083    0.078    0.070    0.068    0.069    0.069    0.068    0.070    0.067    0.066
                                                (NC).
37-119-0046.................  University       Mecklenburg      .......  .......  .......  .......      \a\      \a\    0.070    0.069    0.067    0.066
                               Meadows.         (NC).                                                 0.070    0.070
37-119-1005.................  Arrowood.......  Mecklenburg        0.077    0.072      \b\  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                (NC).                               0.066
37-119-1009.................  County Line....  Cabarrus (NC)..    0.083    0.078    0.073      \c\  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                                                0.067
37-159-0021.................  Rockwell CSS...  Rowan (NC).....    0.078    0.073    0.068    0.064    0.065    0.064    0.062    0.062    0.061    0.062
37-159-0022.................  Enochville.....  Rowan (NC).....    0.077      \d\  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                                           0.072
37-179-0003.................  Monroe.........  Union (NC).....    0.073    0.070    0.068    0.067  .......  .......    (\e\)    (\e\)    0.063    0.062

45-091-8801.................  Catawba          Catawba Indian   .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......    0.063    0.064    0.062    0.062
                               Longhouse.       Nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Monitor started in 2016 to replace 37-119-1009; EPA approved combining data for the two sites to calculate a design value; value reported is a
  combined design value.
\b\ Monitor was shut down at the end of the 2014 ozone season.
\c\ Monitor was shut down at the end of the 2015 ozone season and replaced by 37-119-0046 in 2016. EPA approved combining data from the two monitors to
  calculate design values.
\d\ Monitor was shut down at the end of the 2013 ozone season.
\e\ Monitor did not meet the 3-year completeness requirement of 90 percent.

    Therefore, the Metrolina Area is eligible for the LMP option, and
EPA proposes to find that the long record of monitored ozone
concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the continuation of
existing VOC and NOX emissions control programs, adequately
provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Metrolina Area through the second 10-year maintenance period and
beyond.
    Additional supporting information that the Metrolina Area is
expected to continue to maintain the NAAQS can be found in projections
of future year design values that EPA recently completed for the
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
that EPA finalized on April 30, 2021.\20\ Those projections, made for
the year 2023, show that the maximum design value for the Charlotte NC-
SC 1997 Ozone Area is expected to be 60.3 parts per billion (ppb). EPA
is not proposing to make any finding in this action regarding
interstate transport obligations for any state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On April 30, 2021, EPA published the final Revised Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update (RCU) using updated modeling
that focused on analytic years 2023 and 2028 and an
``interpolation'' analysis of these modeling results to generate air
quality and contribution values for the 2021 analytic year. See 86
FR 23054. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-04-30/pdf/2021-05705.pdf. This modeling included projected ozone design values
for ozone monitors in the Charlotte SC-NC maintenance area. See the
spreadsheet titled ``Data File with Ozone Design Values and Ozone
Contributions (xlsx)'' at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area has
maintained air quality below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the past
twelve design values. Additionally, the design value data shown in
Tables 2a and 2b illustrate that ozone levels have been relatively
stable over the 2001-2021 timeframe, with an overall downward trend.
For example, data in Tables 2a and 2b indicate that the largest year
over year change in design values at any one monitor during these
seventeen years was 0.008 ppm, which occurred between the 2003 and 2004
design values and between the 2013 and the 2014 design values,
representing approximately an 8 percent and 10 percent decrease at
monitors 37-159-0022 (Enochville) and 37-119-0041 (Garinger),
respectively. Furthermore, the overall trend in design values for the
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area between the 2003-2021 design
values, shows a decrease of 38 percent at the highest monitor, Rockwell
CSS monitor 37-159-002. This downward trend in ozone levels, coupled
with the relatively small year over year variation in ozone design
values, makes it reasonable to conclude that the Charlotte NC-SC 1997
8-hour NAAQS Area will not exceed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during
the second 10-year maintenance period.

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring networks operated and
maintained by the states in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. The network
plans are submitted annually to EPA, and network assessments are
submitted every five years. NCDAQ operates a network plan with multiple
monitors within the boundary of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS
Area.\21\ The annual network plan developed by NCDAQ follows a public
notification and review process. EPA has reviewed and approved the
North Carolina 2021 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan (``2021 Annual
Network Plan'').\22\ Mecklenburg County Air Quality and NCDAQ also
submitted 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessments as required
by 40 CFR 58.10(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ South Carolina maintains one monitor in York County.
Although that monitor is near the maintenance boundary, it is not
used to determine compliance of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour
NAAQS Area with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because it is not
located within the maintenance area. The Catawba Longhouse monitor
referenced in Tables 2a and 2b is a monitor maintained by the
Catawba Indian Nation (CIN), and the CIN land was included in the
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area boundary.
    \22\ See October 27, 2021, letter and approval from Caroline
Freeman, Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region 4 to Mike
Abraczinskas, Director, Division of Air Quality, North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, available in the docket for
this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of the Metrolina Area over the
maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for
continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, North Carolina's
2020 Annual Network Plan, which covers the monitors within the
Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area, has been approved by EPA in
accordance with 40 part 58. In the LMP, North Carolina commits to
continue to monitoring ozone in the Metrolina Area. North Carolina
states that any monitoring changes will only be made if they are
consistent with 40 CFR part 58 and that any monitor shutdowns or
relocations will only be made with EPA's approval.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or to promptly remedy any
NAAQS violations that might occur during the maintenance period. The
state should identify specific triggers which will be used to determine
when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
    The LMP has three triggers. The primary trigger will be a violating
design value of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the Charlotte NC-SC
1997 8-hour NAAQS Area. The trigger date will be 60 days from the date
on which an ozone monitor in the Area records a fourth highest value
that, when averaged with the two previous ozone seasons' fourth highest
values, results in a three year average equal to

or greater than 85 ppb. If this trigger or the secondary trigger is
activated, the LMP requires North Carolina to conduct analyses to
determine the emission control measures that will be necessary for
attaining or maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The plan outlines
the steps that North Carolina must conduct to determine control
measures, including verification and analysis of data related to the
exceedance, and possible causes. North Carolina will adopt and
implement as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 24 months
after the trigger event, at least one control measure that is
determined to be most appropriate for reducing NOx emissions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Contingency Plan section of the LMP for further
information regarding the contingency plan, including measures that
North Carolina will consider for adoption if the trigger is
activated. The LMP is available in the docket for this proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The secondary trigger will apply if the state finds monitored ozone
levels indicating that an actual ozone NAAQS violation may be imminent,
i.e., when there are two consecutive ozone seasons in which the fourth
highest values are 85 ppb or greater at a single monitor within the
maintenance area. The tertiary trigger will be a first alert as to a
potential future violation and will be activated when a monitor in the
Area has a fourth highest value of 85 ppb or greater, starting the
first year after the maintenance plan has been approved. Like the
primary trigger, the trigger date for the secondary and tertiary
triggers will be 60 days from the date on which an ozone monitor in the
Area records the pertinent fourth highest value. Tertiary trigger
activation will result in the analyses described in the LMP to
understand why a fourth high exceedance has occurred and in the
development of an outreach plan identifying any additional voluntary
measures that can be implemented.
    EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in North
Carolina's second maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS meet
the requirements of the CAA section 175A(d).

E. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the Metrolina Area LMP for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS includes an approvable update of various elements of
the initial EPA-approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA also proposes to find that the Metrolina Area qualifies for
the LMP option and adequately demonstrates maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through the documentation of monitoring data showing
maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the NAAQS and historically
stable design values. EPA believes the Metrolina Area LMP, which
retains existing control measures in the SIP, is sufficient to provide
for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Metrolina Area
over the second maintenance period (i.e., through 2034) and thereby
satisfies the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).
EPA is therefore proposing to approve North Carolina's December 9,
2021, submission of the Metrolina Area LMP as a revision to the North
Carolina SIP.

V. Transportation Conformity and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs, and that it establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether they conform. The conformity rule generally
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB)
contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. See
40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124. A MVEB is defined as ``the portion
of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or approved
control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a
certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress
milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for
any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to highway and
transit vehicle use and emissions.'' See 40 CFR 93.101.
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). On August
13, 2013, EPA made a finding that the MVEBs for the first 10 years of
the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the North Carolina portion
of the Charlotte NC-SC 1997 8-hour NAAQS Area were adequate for
transportation conformity purposes. In a Federal Register notice dated
August 13, 2013, EPA notified the public of that finding. See 78 FR
49265. This adequacy determination became effective on August 28, 2013.
    After approval of this LMP or an adequacy finding for this LMP,
there is no requirement to meet the ``budget test'' for motor vehicle
emissions pursuant to the transportation conformity rule for the
Metrolina Area. All actions that would require a transportation
conformity determination for the Metrolina Area under EPA's
transportation conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result of EPA's adequacy finding for
this LMP. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation
projects still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40
CFR 93.105) and Transportation Control Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113) as well as meet the hot-spot
requirements for projects (40 CFR 93.116).\24\ Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently
than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order for
projects to be approved they must come from a currently conforming RTP
and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 93.115. The Charlotte NC-SC 2008
NAAQS Area must continue to meet all applicable requirements of the
general conformity regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A conformity determination that meets other applicable
criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this section (93.109(e)) is
still required, including the hot-spot requirements for projects in
CO, PM10, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the Metrolina Area LMP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by NCDAQ on December 9, 2021, as a
revision to the North Carolina SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
Metrolina Area LMP because it includes an acceptable update of various
elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan approved by
EPA for the first 10-year period (including emissions inventory,
assurance of adequate monitoring and verification of

continued attainment, and contingency provisions), and retains the
relevant provisions of the SIP.
    EPA also finds that the Metrolina Area qualifies for the LMP option
and that, therefore, the Metrolina Area's LMP adequately demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through documentation of
monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the
NAAQS and continuation of existing control measures. EPA believes that
the Metrolina Area's 1997 8-Hour Ozone LMP is sufficient to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Metrolina Area over
the second 10-year maintenance period, through 2034, and thereby
satisfies the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental Relations, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: November 10, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-25078 Filed 11-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23476-23477]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1504-000]

Cimarron Windpower II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Cimarron Windpower II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of

future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 2,
2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9385 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33697]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2156-000]

Antelope Expansion 1B, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Antelope Expansion 1B, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 12, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13602 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

<EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: Linda
Hollis #17<PHONE_NUMBER>)>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<SUBMISSION: E-mail the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<TEMPLATE:>

Arkion Life Sciences

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
Interregional Research Project Number 4(IR-4) 500 College Road East,
Suite 201W Princeton, New Jersey on behalf of Arkion Life Sciences, 551
Mews Drive Suite J, New Castle DE 19720 proposing, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of>

<	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for>

<	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance
exemption for the>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. microbial pesticide  [insert name of active ingredient]>

<	2. biochemical pesticide 9,10 anthraquinone>

<	3. plant-pesticide [insert name of active ingredient] in or on [insert
commodity].>

<	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended,
Interregional Research Project Number 4(IR-4) on behalf of Arkion Life
Sciences has submitted the following summary of information, data, and
arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was
prepared by Interregional Research Project Number 4(IR-4) on behalf of
Arkion Life Sciences and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the
pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the
terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material,
or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the
findings reflected EPA’s position and not the position of the
petitioner.>

<I. Arkion Life Sciences  Petition Summary>

<	[Insert petition number]>

<A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices>

<	Avipel liquid corn seed treatment.  Avipel will be used for the
protection of planted field and sweet corn seed against consumption by
blackbirds, cranes, grackles and pheasants. Application will be
performed to corn seed either by commercial seed treatment businesses or
on farm as a planter box seed treatment.>

<B. Product Identity/Chemistry>

<	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues.>>

	The active ingredient in Avipel is 9,10 anthraquinone (CAS 84-65-1).
Residues of 9,10 anthraquinone, 1-hydroxy anthraquinone and 2-hydroxy
anthraquinone have been quantitatively and qualitatively measured using
a GLP Magnitude of Residue study conducted under the auspices of IR-4
and included in this filing.

<	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue.>

Anthraquinone, the active ingredient in Avipel( liquid formulation and
Avitec( dry powder formulation, is a pesticide used on field corn for
control of sandhill crane.  To provide the sponsor with residue
chemistry data to support the establishment of a tolerance for
anthraquinone in or on field corn,   HYPERLINK  \l "_Appendix_1_Field"
15 field trials  were conducted for this study during the 2006 and 2007
growing seasons, two each in Michigan (EPA Region 5) and New York
(Region 1); three in North Dakota (one Region 5, two Region 7); one
each in Ohio (Region 5), South Dakota (Region 5), and Texas (Region 6);
and five in Wisconsin (Region 5).  Six varieties of field corn seed
were treated with Avipel( liquid formulation at targeted rates of
approximately 0.005 lb ai/lb seed (1X), and at 0.025 lb ai/lb seed
(5X)(2006 trials), or 0.05 lb ai/lb seed (10X) (2007 trials).  In
addition, at the Wisconsin 06-WI07 and North Dakota 06-ND04 trials, seed
was treated with Avitec( dry powder formulation at rates of
approximately 0.005 lb ai/lb seed (1X) and 0.025 lb ai/lb seed (5X).
The seed was planted and samples of kernels plus cob with husks removed
(K+CWHR) and samples of forage were collected at the milk stage.
Samples of grain and stover were collected at crop maturity.

 HYPERLINK  \l "_Appendix_2_Analytical" Sample analysis  for residues of
anthraquinone, 1-hydroxyanthraquinone, and 2-hydroxyanthraquinone was
conducted by Cornell Analytical Laboratories, Geneva, NY.  The procedure
used was “Residue Analysis of Anthraquinone on Corn (field) including
Kernels plus Cob with Husks Removed (K+CWHR), Forage, Grain, and Stover
by LC/MS Detection”, Version #1

The  HYPERLINK  \l "TableC3" results  from the 15 trials show that no
residues above the LLMV of 0.10 ppm of anthraquinone,
1-hydroxyanthraquinone, and 2-hydroxyanthraquinone were observed in any
of the samples following seed treatment at rates of approximately 0.025
lb ai/lb seed (5X), or 0.05 lb ai/lb seed (10X) in any grain sample.
Residues of 0.12 ppm 1-hydroxyanthraquinone were observed in one stover
sample treated with Avipel( liquid formulation at the 10X rate from the
Texas trial.  The sample was reanalyzed at a later date and no residues
above the LLMV were observed.

<	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed.>

	An analytical method is available.  HYPERLINK  \l
"_Appendix_2_Analytical" Sample analysis  for residues of anthraquinone,
1-hydroxyanthraquinone, and 2-hydroxyanthraquinone was conducted by
Cornell Analytical Laboratories, Geneva, NY.  The procedure used was
“Residue Analysis of Anthraquinone on Corn (field) including Kernels
plus Cob with Husks Removed (K+CWHR), Forage, Grain, and Stover by LC/MS
Detection”, Version #1.

<C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile>

<	The information submitted on this formulation as Flight Control for
outdoor nonfood use was previously reviewed by BPPD and states:
Adequate mammalian toxicology data are available and support
registration of the active ingredient 9,10 – anthraquinone.  The
registrant, (Arkion Life Sciences), submitted acceptable acute toxicity
studies for both the Technical Grade Active Ingredient (TGAI) and the
end-use product.>>

For the TGAI: (i) acute oral LD50 in rats was >5000 mg/kg (Tox category
IV); (ii) acute dermal LD50 in rabbits was >5000 mg/kg (Tox category
IV); (iii) acute inhalation LC50 in rats was >2.11 mg/L (Tox category
IV); and (iv) the EP caused mild ocular irritation symptoms in rabbits
which cleared in 72 hours post-instillation (Tox category III).

For the EP: (i) acute oral LD50 in rats was >5000 mg/kg (Tox category
IV); (ii) acute dermal LD50 in rats was >5000 mg/kg (Tox category IV);
(iii) acute inhalation LD50 in rats was > 2.04 mg/L (Tox category IV);
(iv) the EP caused mild ocular irritation symptoms in rabbits which
cleared by 72 hours post instillation (Tox category III); (v) the EP
caused slight dermal irritation symptoms in rabbits which cleared by 24
hours post dosing (Tox category III); and (vi) the EP was shown to be a
contact sensitizer in guinea pigs using the Buehler Method.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has conducted a series of studies
on anthraquinone. All these studies were conducted with anthraquinone
samples produced from a process based on anthracene.  The current
process does not give rise to this impurity.  The sample of
anthraquinone used in the NTP studies were contaminated with up to 0.11%
9-nitroanthracene (9-NA) and 0.6% of mutagenic impurities. The sample
was produced using an anthracene-derived process.  This process has not
been used for decades and is not used in any of the Arkion Life Sciences
material.

The level of 9-nitroanthracene in the studies were calculated at roughly
4 ppm in the diet at 3750 ppm anthraquinone  The high dose tested in the
rat study was 7500 ppm anthraquinone. The contamination of the
anthraquinone sample with the potent mutagen 9-nitroanthracene was well
documented in both the NTP report and the open literature.  Estimates
based on mutagenic potency indicate it is plausible that the 9-NA and
other contaminants could have been responsible for a portion, if not
all, of the tumor induction observed in the NTP study.

30,000 ppm females. The concentrations of α-2u-globulin in the kidneys
were significantly greater in all exposed groups of males. Thyroid gland
follicular cell hypertrophy was present in all males and females exposed
to 3,750 ppm or greater. Incidences of inflammation and transitional
cell hyperplasia in the urinary bladder of 30,000 ppm females were
greater than those in the controls.  This study was performed with
samples of anthraquinone containing the impurity 9-aminoanthracene, a
known toxicant.  The US EPA Guideline sets the limit dose for 90-day
studies at 1000 mg/kg.  The high dose in this study exceeded the limit
dose.

The NTP has conducted a subchronic oral toxicity study in mice. Groups
of 10 male and 10 female B6C3F1 mice were fed diets containing 0, 1,875,
3,750, 7,500, 15,000, or 30,000 ppm anthraquinone (equivalent to average
daily doses of approximately 250, 500, 1,050, 2,150, or 4,300 mg/kg to
males and 300, 640, 1,260, 2,600, or 5,300 mg/kg to females) for 14
weeks. All mice survived until the end of the study. Mean body weights
and feed consumption were similar among exposed and control groups. A
responsive anemia occurred in exposed mice at week 14 but a clear dose
response was not evident and the response was weak. Liver weights of
exposed groups of mice were significantly greater than those of the
control groups. The incidences of centrilobular hypertrophy in the liver
of mice exposed to 3,750 ppm or greater were significantly greater than
those in the controls, and the severities increased with increasing
exposure concentration. Cytoplasmic alteration of the urinary bladder
was observed in all exposed mice, and the severities increased with
increasing exposure concentration. The incidences of hematopoietic cell
proliferation were increased in all exposed groups of males and females,
and pigmentation was observed in the spleen of all exposed mice (except
one male and one female in the 30,000 ppm groups). This study was
performed with samples of anthraquinone containing the impurity
9-aminoanthracene, a known toxicant. The US EPA Guideline sets the limit
dose for 90-day studies at 1000 mg/kg.  The high dose in this study
exceeded the limit dose.

 and α2u-globulin concentrations at 3 months and for organ weights and
histopathology at 12 months. These dietary anthraquinone concentrations
resulted in average daily doses of approximately 20, 45, 90, and180
mg/kg to males and 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg to females. Additional
groups of 18 males given 469, 938, 1,875, or 3,750 ppm for 8 days and 10
males and 10 females given 469, 938, or 1,875 ppm for 3, 6, 12, or 18
months were designated for toxicokinetic studies. Survival of all groups
of males was similar, and survival of exposed groups of females was
greater than that of the controls. Mean body weights of exposed groups
of males during the latter part of the study and mean body weights of
exposed females throughout most of the study were less than those of the
controls. Feed consumption by exposed groups was similar to that by the
controls.

pathy were increased in females, and severities of nephropathy were
increased in males. At 3 months, the concentration of α2u-globulin in
the kidney of 3,750 ppm males was greater than that in the control
group.

The incidence of urinary bladder transitional epithelial papilloma was
significantly greater in 1,875 ppm males than in the control group, and
the incidences in groups of males exposed to 938 ppm or greater exceeded
the historical control range. There were positive trends in the
incidences of transitional epithelial hyperplasia and papilloma or
carcinoma (combined) of the urinary bladder in females. The incidences
of hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma (combined) were slightly
increased in exposed males and females; the incidences in groups of
females exposed to 938 ppm or greater exceeded the historical control
range. The incidences of several nonneoplastic liver lesions of minimal
severity were also increased. The incidences of congestion,
pigmentation, and hematopoietic cell proliferation of the spleen were
greater in exposed males and females than in the controls. The
incidences of bone marrow hyperplasia were increased in most groups of
exposed rats, and the incidences of bone marrow atrophy were increased
in exposed females. The incidences of mononuclear cell leukemia were
significantly less in all exposed groups than in the controls at 2
years, and the incidences were less than the historical control ranges.
The NOEL was 469 ppm (20 mg/kg males, 25 mg/kg females) based on
pathological findings in the liver, kidney and bladder at 938 ppm (45
and 50 mg/kg males and females, respectively).

In an NTP study for oncogenicity in mice, groups of 50 male and 50
female B6C3F1 mice were fed diets containing 0, 833, 2,500, or 7,500 ppm
anthraquinone (equivalent to average daily doses of approximately 90,
265, or 825 mg/kg to males and  80, 235, or 745 mg/kg to females) for
105 weeks. Additional groups of 36 males given 833, 2,500, or 7,500 ppm
for 8 days and 10 males and 10 females given 833, 2,500, or 7,500 ppm
for 12 months were designated for toxicokinetic studies. Survival was
decreased for 7,500 ppm males than for the control group. Mean body
weights of 7,500 ppm males during the last 6 months of the study and
mean body weights of 7,500 ppm females at the end of the study were less
than those of the control groups. Feed consumption was similar in all
groups of males and females.

Incidences of hepatocellular neoplasms (including multiple neoplasms)
increased with a positive trend in male and female mice, and the
incidences were increased in all exposed groups. Incidences of
hepatoblastoma were significantly increased in males exposed to 2,500 or
7,500 ppm. The incidences of several nonneoplastic lesions of the liver
were increased in exposed mice. There was a marginal increase in the
incidences of neoplasms of thyroid gland follicular cells in males and
females. Incidences of intracytoplasmic inclusion body of the urinary
bladder and hematopoietic cell proliferation of the spleen in males and
females and thyroid gland follicular cell hyperplasia and kidney
pigmentation in males were greater in exposed groups than in the
controls.

The NOEL was 833ppm (90 mg/kg and 80 mg/kg males and females,
respectively) based on pathological findings in the liver, kidney,
thyroid and spleen at 2500 ppm (265 and 235 mg/kg males and females,
respectively).

For developmental and reproductive toxicity, no studies have been
conducted for anthraquinone. However, a structural analog, emodin (1, 3,
8-trihydroxy-6-methyl-anthraquinone), has been tested for developmental
toxicity by the NTP in rats and mice.  Emodin is a naturally occurring
and pharmacologically active anthraquinone found in the roots and bark
of certain plant species.

Time mated Sprague Dawley (CD®) rats (25/group) were exposed to emodin
at nominal concentrations of 0, 425, 850, and 1700 ppm in NIH-07 ground
rodent diet from gestational day (gd) 6 to 20. Average daily intake was
0, 31, and 57 mg emodin/kg of body weight/day for the control, low- and
mid-dose groups. Average daily intake for the 1700 ppm group was 80-144
mg emodin/kg of body weight/day. There were no differences among groups
for the number of corpora lutea/dam, number of implantation
sites/litter, or percent preimplantation loss/litter. Postimplantation
loss (resorptions or late fetal deaths), live litter size, percent male
fetuses/litter, and average fetal body weight/litter (males, females or
both) were likewise unaffected. Emodin did not affect the incidence of
fetal malformations or variations. The maternal LOAEL was considered to
be 1700 ppm (80-144 mg/kg/day) based on maternal body weight and weight
gain, and the NOAEL was 850 ppm (57 mg/kg/day). The developmental
toxicity NOAEL was greater than or equal to 1700 ppm (80-144 mg/kg/day).
A LOAEL for developmental toxicity was not established in this study.

In an NTP study, time-mated Swiss albino (CD-1®) mice (25/group) were
exposed to emodin at concentrations of 0, 600, 2500 or 6000 ppm in
NIH-07 rodent diet from gestational day (gd) 6 to 17. Average daily
intake was 0, 94, 391, and 1005 mg emodin/kg/day. Nominal concentrations
of emodin (ppm in feed) and calculated intake of emodin (mg/kg/day) are
expressed as the bulk test article (96.2% purity) unless otherwise
noted. There were no differences among groups for the number of corpora
lutea/dam, number of implantation sites/litter, or percent
preimplantation loss/litter. Postimplantation loss (resorptions or late
fetal deaths), live litter size, and percent male fetuses/litter were
likewise unaffected. At 6000 ppm, average fetal body weight/litter
(males, females or both) was reduced by 10-11%, and this effect was
statistically significant.

Ingested emodin failed to significantly affect the incidences of fetal
malformations or variations. At 2500 ppm, external malformations
included exencephaly (3 fetuses in 3 litters) and cleft palate (2
fetuses in 2 litters). However, this increase in external malformations
was not considered to be treatment related due to the clear absence of a
dose-response relationship. At 6000 ppm, no external malformations were
found among 302 fetuses (24 litters), nor had any been observed among
161 fetuses (13 litters) at 6000 ppm in the screening study (NTP, 2000).

The maternal toxicity LOAEL was considered to be 6000 ppm (1005
mg/kg/day) based on reduction of maternal body weight and weight gain,
and the NOAEL was 2500 ppm (391 mg/kg/day). The developmental toxicity
LOAEL was 6000 ppm (1005 mg/kg/day) based on reduction of fetal body
weight, and the NOAEL was 2500 ppm (391 mg/kg/day).

Emodin was not a developmental toxin.  It is not anticipated that
anthraquinone will be a developmental toxin.

Several mutagenicity studies were conducted by NTP on anthraquinone
using S. typhimurium, and mouse peripherial blood micronuclei
Statistically significant increases in the frequencies of micronucleated
normochromatic erythrocytes were observed in peripheral blood samples
from male and female mice exposed to anthraquinone (99.8% pure) in feed
for 14 weeks but the frequency was low. However, results of an acute
exposure mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, with anthraquinone
administered by intraperitoneal injection, was negative.  The NTP
concluded that there was evidence of increased erythropoiesis in the
14-week treated mice and concluded that the increased rate of
erythropoiesis may have contributed to the micronucleus responses seen
in the high exposure concentration groups.  (Increased cell
proliferation can produce increased levels of mitotic errors.)  Overall,
NTP concluded that anthraquinone was negative for genotoxicity.

In EPA Guideline studies, anthraquinone was negative in bacterial
mutation tests using Salmonella and E. coli with and without activation.
 Anthraquinone was also negative in a mouse lymphoma gene mutation test
with and without metabolic activation.   Anthraquinone did not induce
chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in the
presence or absence of activation.  Additionally, another mouse
micronucleus bone marrow study was also negative following an acute
exposure.

In studies conducted as part of the NTP studies, the metabolism and
disposition of anthraquinone in male F344/N rats were examined. Animals
were administered uniformly labeled 14C-anthraquinone by intravenous
injection at 0.35 mg/kg body weight or by gavage at doses ranging from
0.35 to 350 mg/kg.

Following oral administration, anthraquinone was absorbed from the
gastrointestinal tract and distributed to tissues. No indication of
bioaccumulation was apparent in any tissue. The majority of the
radiolabel was eliminated in the feces and the urine by 24 hours after
dosing at all four concentrations. At 96 hours after dosing, less than
5% of the administered dose remained in major tissues.

Elimination of over 50% of the administered radioactivity in the feces
and there was substantial excretion of parent and/or metabolites in the
bile. Analysis of the bile samples indicated that less than 3% of the
radioactivity collected was present as the parent compound, suggesting
extensive hepatic metabolism. Analysis of urine from dosed rats revealed
the presence of as many as 11 metabolites. Two of the metabolites
identified were 1-hydroxyanthraquinone and 2-hydroxyanthraquinone.

The plasma half-life in mice was determined to be 4 hours, and in rats
it was between 10-12 hours.

<D. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure.>>

	No exposure is expected based on the lack of measurable residues in the
crop.  A theoretical estimation of dietary risk was conducted using
LifeLineTM version 5.0 with very conservative assumptions. Values of 0.1
ppm were used based on the LODs of the analytical method for the parent
and three presumptive metabolites.  No residues at a 10x use rate were
detected which represents a 10-fold higher residue. A 100% crop
treatment was also assumed.  All LifeLine default processing values were
used.  The NOEL for the chronic study was assumed to be 7 mg/kg, based
on a 3X reduction in the NOEL of the NTP study.  A 10X FQPA safety
factor was assumed as a conservative default.

Using exaggerated assumptions of residue and hazard, chronic dietary
risks did not exceed 5% of the Reference Dose (RfD) with the most
sensitive subpopulation, children ages 3- 5 with an estimate of 4.5% of
the RfD.  Taking the 95th percentile of the chronic assessment for the
acute dietary risk, the highest subpopulation was 7.9% of the chronic
RfD.

Neither acute or chronic exposures are of dietary concern.

<i. Food.>>

No exposure is expected based on the lack of measurable residues in the
crop.

<	ii. Drinking water.>>

	No exposure is expected in drinking water.

<	2. Non-dietary exposure.>>

	Based on its low toxicity and use practice (repellent of a vertebrate
pest), anthraquinone is not subject to the Worker Protection Standards
(WPS).  Moreover, the possibility for dermal, eye and inhalation
exposure is mitigated as long as the product is used according to label
directions which recommends use of gloves, long sleeved shirts, long
sleeved pants and NIOSH filters to prevent inhalation. It is anticipated
that a majority of the treated corn seed will occur within a commercial
seed treatment facility.

<E. Cumulative Effects>

<	Anthraquinone is not toxic and therefore there would be no expected
cumulative effects from common mechanisms of toxicity.>

<F. Safety Determination>

	1. U.S. population.

B*

4

6

B

B*

ሀ6

‹

Œ

£

¤

â

ã

B*

cute toxicity studies previously reviewed by the EPA as part of the
Flight Control (66969-1) registration process. Because the inhalation
toxicity studies for anthraquinone showed no toxicity (Toxicity Category
IV), the risks anticipated for this route of exposure are considered
minimal.  Results of the acute dermal study indicated low toxicity
(Toxicity Category IV), and no significant dermal irritation (Toxicity
Category IV).  Based on these results, the anticipated risks from dermal
and inhalation exposures are also considered minimal.  Therefore, the
risks from aggregate exposure via dermal and inhalation exposure are a
compilation of two low risk exposure scenarios and are considered
negligible.  Exposure is further mitigated by use of worker protection
equipment on the label.

<	2. Infants and children.>

	There is no anticipated residue associated with the proposed use of the
anthraquinone.  Therefore, the acute dietary risks should be negligible
based on the lack of exposure.

<G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems>

	There are no anticipated residues, therefore there is no exposure to
the population to trigger concern for immune and endocrine effects in
the general population or in the high risk population of infants and
children.<>

<H. Existing Tolerances>

<	There is no established direct food tolerance in food for
anthraquinone.  There is an indirect food tolerance issued by FDA for
anthraquinone in paper products used in contact with food.  The
established tolerance in this case for paper products is 2 ppm.>

<I. International Tolerances>

	There is no established direct food tolerance in food for
anthraquinone.  There is an indirect food tolerance issued by FDA for
anthraquinone in paper products used in contact with food.  The
established tolerance in this case for paper products is 2 ppm.

<>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2