[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42900-42907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14103]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0615; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0616; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0617;
FRL-11003-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
Second 10-Year 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Limited Maintenance Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the limited maintenance plans
(LMP) submitted on September 8, 2021, by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) for the Canton-Massillon (Stark County),
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, and
Summit Counties) and Steubenville-Weirton (Ohio-West Virginia,
Jefferson County) maintenance areas. The plans address the second 10-
year maintenance periods for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's LMP submissions
for Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and Steubenville-Weirton
because they provide for the maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) through
the end of the second 10-year portion of the maintenance periods. In
addition, EPA is initiating the process to find the Canton-Massillon,
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and Steubenville-Weirton PM2.5 LMPs

adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0615 (Canton-Massillon), EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0616 (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain), or EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0617 (Steubenville-Weirton) at
https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Davidson, Attainment Planning
and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The EPA Region
5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

    Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to 2.5 micrometers, known as PM2.5, is one of the criteria
pollutants for which a NAAQS is established to protect human health and
the environment. In 1997, EPA established the first PM2.5
standards based on significant scientific evidence and health studies
demonstrating the serious health effects associated with exposure to
PM2.5. EPA set an annual standard of 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour (or daily) standard of 65 [mu]g/
m\3\. In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by
revising it to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Subsequently, in 2012,
EPA established an annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ and retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/
m\3\.

B. Regulatory Actions in Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, and
Steubenville-Weirton

    On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the Canton-Massillon (Canton),
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain (Cleveland), and Steubenville-Weirton
(Steubenville) areas as PM2.5 nonattainment areas due to
measured violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR
58688). On June 18, May 30, and May 25, 2012, OEPA submitted to EPA
requests to redesignate the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
nonattainment areas, respectively, to attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions included plans to provide for
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the areas for
10 years. EPA redesignated the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
areas to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on
October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62459), September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57270 and 78
FR 57273), respectively, and approved the associated maintenance plans
into the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of OEPA'S
September 8, 2021, LMP submissions is to fulfill the second 10-year
planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure PM2.5
NAAQS compliance through 2033.

II. The Limited Maintenance Plan Option

A. Demonstration of Maintenance Using the Limited Maintenance Plan
Option

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a revision to the SIP
that provides for maintenance of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after an area is redesignated to attainment. Section 175A also
requires that eight years into the first maintenance period, the state
must submit a second maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will
continue to attain for the following 10-year period.
    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\1\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future emissions
of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level of
emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). EPA clarified in subsequent guidance memos
that certain nonattainment areas could meet the CAA section 175A
requirement to provide for maintenance by demonstrating that the area's
design value was well below the NAAQS and that the historical stability
of the area's air quality levels showed that the area was unlikely to
violate the NAAQS in the future.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Calcagni, John, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' September
4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \2\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (PM10 LMP Guidance)
from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, dated August 9, 2001. Copies of these
guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most recently, in October 2022, EPA released guidance extending
this streamlined option for demonstrating maintenance under CAA section
175A to certain PM2.5 areas, titled ``Guidance on Limited
Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' (PM2.5 LMP
Guidance).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The guidance document developed by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, the Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, and the Office of Air and Radiation titled ``Guidance on
the Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM2.5
Nonattainment Areas and PM2.5 Maintenance Areas'' can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/PM%202.5%20Limited%20Maintenance%20Plan%20Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration of maintenance as an
LMP. EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting this option
because section 175A of the Act defines few specific content
requirements for maintenance plans, and in EPA's experience
implementing the various NAAQS, areas that qualify for a LMP and have
approved LMPs have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations

of the NAAQS. As noted in the LMP guidance, states seeking an LMP
should still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including: an attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, states
seeking an LMP must still submit their section 175A maintenance plan as
a revision to their SIP, with all attendant notice and comment
procedures.
    The PM2.5 LMP Guidance, similar to qualification for a
LMP under the PM10 LMP Guidance, allows states to
demonstrate that areas qualify for a LMP by showing that, based on
their recent measured air quality, they are unlikely to violate the
NAAQS in the future.
    Specifically, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance relies on the
critical design value (CDV) concept. The Guidance directs states to
calculate a site-specific CDV for the monitoring site in an area with
the highest design value, and also for all other active monitoring
sites in the area with complete data. The Guidance states that areas
should show that the average design value (ADV) for each monitoring
site in the area, i.e., the average of at least the most recent
consecutive 5 years of PM2.5 design values, does not exceed
the associated CDV for each site.\4\ The CDV calculation for a
monitoring site involves parameters including: (1) the level of the
relevant NAAQS; (2) the co-efficient of variation of recent design
values measured at that site; and (3) a statistical parameter
corresponding to a 10 percent probability of exceedance, such that
sites with historically high variability in design values result in a
lower (or more stringent) CDV. Evaluating if the ADV for each
monitoring site in the area is below the CDV demonstrates that the
probability of a future exceedance, based on the area's historical air
quality and variability, is less than 10 percent. Per EPA's
transportation conformity regulations, areas with LMPs must also
``demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect that such an area
would experience enough motor vehicle emissions growth for a violation
of the NAAQS to occur.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA recommends that the ADV be calculated using at least
five years of design values, each representing a three-year period,
because this approach would rely on a more robust dataset. However,
we acknowledge that an alternative interpretation may be acceptable,
where these variables could be calculated using three years of
design values, collectively representing five years of air quality
data.
    \5\ See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Transportation Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Under that provision, conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause or contribute to new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any
area. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B). EPA's transportation conformity
rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A establishes the criteria and
procedures to determine whether metropolitan transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and federally supported highway
and transit projects conform to the purpose of the SIP.
    While qualification for the LMP option does not exempt an area from
the need to determine conformity, in an area with an LMP, conformity
may be demonstrated without a regional emissions analysis for the
relevant NAAQS and pollutant (40 CFR 93.109(e)). An LMP must
demonstrate that it is unreasonable to expect that the qualifying areas
would experience so much growth in on-road emissions during the
maintenance period that a violation of the relevant NAAQS would occur
(40 CFR 93.109(e)). Hence, because no such impact is expected, areas
with LMPs are not required to do a regional emissions analysis as part
of a transportation conformity determination. See 40 CFR 93.109(e).
Therefore, an LMP does not include motor vehicle emissions budgets.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved or found adequate under
the LMP option are not required to do a regional emissions analysis
(and are not subject to the budget test in 40 CFR 93.118), the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A, including fulfilling project-level
conformity analyses requirements and consultation requirements. Ohio
has established transportation conformity criteria and procedures
related to interagency consultation, and enforceability of certain
transportation related control and mitigation measures. Updates to the
OEPA transportation conformity SIP were approved March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11133), which addresses the consultation requirements for the purpose
of evaluating the conformity of transportation plans. The LMP SIP
submissions for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville were developed as
part of an interagency consultation process which includes Federal,
state, and local agencies.
    The PM2.5 LMP Guidance notes that an LMP may be
particularly appropriate for a second maintenance plan, as the area
will have demonstrated attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS for at
least 8 years. To demonstrate that it would be unreasonable to expect
that the area would experience enough motor vehicle growth for a NAAQS
violation to occur, the guidance states that an LMP submissions should
address the PM2.5 air quality trends and the historical and
projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Further, if re-entrained road
dust has been found to be significant for PM2.5
transportation conformity purposes under 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the plan
should include an on-road PM2.5 emissions analysis
consistent with the methodology provided in attachment B of the
PM10 LMP Guidance, which is included in the appendix for the
PM2.5 LMP Guidance. The on-road emissions analysis would
include a demonstration that for each monitoring site in the area, the
ADV plus the expected on-road emissions growth estimate does not exceed
the CDV.
    In addition to these proposed actions, EPA is notifying the public
that the Agency is initiating the adequacy process for the Canton,
Cleveland, and Steubenville LMPs. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Since LMPs
do not include motor vehicle emissions budgets, in the case of an LMP,
EPA's adequacy review is to assess whether the demonstration required
by 40 CFR 93.109(e) is met. Any comments on the adequacy of the
submitted OH LMPs should be submitted to the docket established for
this rulemaking. If EPA approves the second 10-year LMPs or finds them
adequate, the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas
will not be required to perform regional emissions analyses but must
meet project-level conformity analyses requirements as well as the
other transportation conformity criteria. We will complete the adequacy
determination process either in the final action on this proposal or by
notifying the state in writing, publishing a notice in the Federal
Register and by posting the finding on EPA's adequacy web page. See 40
CFR 93.118(f).

C. General Conformity Under Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The general conformity rule of November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214)
applies to nonattainment areas and redesignated attainment areas
operating under maintenance plans (i.e., maintenance areas). General
conformity requires compliance to the purpose of a SIP, which means
that Federal activities not related to transportation plans,

programs, and projects will not cause or contribute to any new
violation of any standard in any area, increase the frequency or
severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or
delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim
emission reductions or other milestones in any area (CAA section
176(c)(1)(A)and(1)(B)). As noted in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance,
EPA's general conformity regulations do not distinguish between
maintenance areas with an approved ``full maintenance plan'' and those
with an approved LMP. Thus, maintenance areas with an approved LMP are
subject to the same general conformity requirements under 40 CFR part
93 subpart B, as those covered by a ``full maintenance plan.'' Nothing
less than full compliance with the general conformity program is
required within an LMP.

III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal

A. Demonstration of Qualification for the Limited Maintenance Plan
Option

    EPA redesignated the Cleveland and Steubenville areas to attainment
of the NAAQS on September 18, 2013 (78 FR 57270 and 78 FR 57273) and
the Canton area on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62459). Table 1 below shows
the historical design values for each area since the areas were
redesignated in 2013.\6\ The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\,
and as shown in table 1, these three areas have been measuring air
quality well below the 2006 standard with decreasing PM2.5
concentrations over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#map.

 Table 1--PM2.5 Design Values in Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville Since Redesignation to Attainment in [mu]g/
                                                      m\3\
                                                   [2013-2022]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Canton PM2.5     Cleveland PM2.5    Steubenville PM2.5
                 Design value period                     design value      design value         design value

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013............................................               27                  28                    26
2012-2014............................................               26                  27                    26
2013-2015............................................               26                  27                    27
2014-2016............................................               24                  25                    27
2015-2017............................................               22                  25                    25
2016-2018............................................               21                  23                    22
2017-2019............................................               21                  24                    21
2018-2020............................................               22                  25                    29
2019-2021............................................               22                  23                    20
2020-2022............................................               22                  24                    19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to find that the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
areas meet the critical design value demonstration for a limited
maintenance plan. As noted above, the parameters of the CDV
calculation, outlined in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance, include the
level of the relevant NAAQS, the co-efficient of variation of recent
design values, and a statistical parameter corresponding to a 10
percent probability of exceedance. The CDV demonstration is designed
such that if a site's ADV is lower than the site's CDV, the probability
of a future exceedance is less than 10%.\7\ Table 2 below contains the
CDV and ADV for each monitor in the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
maintenance areas. EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by
the State and finds that each monitor's 5-year average design value is
well below the corresponding site-specific CDV.\8\ Due to data
completeness issues in 2020 at the design value monitors in the
areas,\9\ the design values from 2015 through 2019 were used to
determine the ADV and CDV at all monitors where possible for purposes
of comparison. Monitoring data issues were related to COVID-19
restrictions preventing field operations, including travel restrictions
barring staff from visiting and maintaining monitoring stations,
resulting in data loss.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the ``Example Site Calculation'', page 7 of the October
2022 PM2.5 LMP guidance (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-10/420b22044.pdf).
    \8\ The submission from OEPA uses a different standard deviation
formula in excel to calculate the CDV than EPA. EPA recommends using
the STDEV.S() formula whereas WDNR used the STDEV.P() formula. EPA
has corrected this for the proposed rule and the spreadsheet in the
docket of this rulemaking contains the calculations with the revised
formula. See Appendix C in each submission for Canton, Cleveland,
and Steubenville, contained in the docket of this rulemaking for
OEPA's calculations.
    \9\ Typically, the design value for each area is the highest
among monitors with valid design values. Here, because the
historically highest (design value) monitors were invalid in 2020
due to setbacks from COVID, we rely on data up to 2019 for this
test.
    \10\ OEPA provided additional information about data loss due to
COVID in and annual air quality report for 2020, available at
https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/air-monitoring.

     Table 2--Qualification of Monitors for LMP in Canton, Cleveland and Steubenville, Ohio in [micro]g/m\3\
                                                   [2015-2019]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            ADV (2015-      CDV (2015-
                 Monitor                       2019)           2019)                 Qualify for LMP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Canton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-151-0017.............................            22.8            30.5  Yes.
39-151-0020.............................            21.4            31.3  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    Cleveland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-35-0065..............................            24.4            33.1  Yes.
39-035-0034.............................            19.6            30.1  Yes.
39-035-0038.............................            24.0            30.8  Yes.
39-035-0045.............................            22.2            30.9  Yes.
39-035-0060 \1\.........................            23.7            31.8  Yes.
39-035-1002.............................            19.6            31.3  Yes.
39-085-0007.............................            17.0            31.5  Yes.
39-093-3002.............................            19.2            30.3  Yes.
39-103-0004.............................            19.8            31.4  Yes.
39-133-0002 \2\.........................            17.3            31.1  Yes.
39-153-0017.............................            22.2            30.2  Yes.
39-153-0023.............................            20.0            30.6  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Steubenville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-081-0017.............................            24.4            29.8  Yes.
54-009-0005.............................            21.2            29.7  Yes.
54-009-0011.............................            22.0            31.5  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Design values for 2018, 2019, and 2020 used for calculation due to data completeness issues.
\2\ Design values for 2017, 2018, and 2019 used for calculation due to data completeness issues.

    We also propose to find that Ohio has adequately demonstrated that
it is unlikely there will be an increase in motor vehicle emissions
growth sufficient to cause a NAAQS violation in any of these three
areas. In its submission, Ohio included an on-road PM2.5
emissions analysis consistent with the methodology provided in the 2001
PM10 LMP Guidance, because at the time of the state's
submission, the PM2.5 LMP Guidance had not yet been issued
by EPA. That analysis, consistent with the on-road calculation in the
PM10 LMP Guidance and as modified in the later
PM2.5 Guidance, examined the total projected growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM2.5 emissions through the end of the
20-year maintenance period, where the projected percentage increase in
vehicle miles traveled (VMTpi) over the next 10 years
(through 2033) is multiplied by the motor vehicle design value
(DVmv) which is based on the on-road mobile portion of the
attainment year inventory. Per the PM LMP Guidances, this test is met
when (VMTpi x DVmv) plus the design value for the
most recent 5 years of quality assured air quality data, referred to as
the future projected DV based on projected mobile source growth, is
below the margin of safety, or in the case of PM2.5, the
CDV, for the relevant PM standard in [mu]g/m\3\ for a given area.
    The site-specific 2006 24-hour PM2.5 CDVs for the
historically highest monitors in each of the three areas is as follows:
Canton (at Canton Fire St8 monitor 39-151-0017) is 30.5 [mu]g/m\3\,
Cleveland (at Harvard Yards monitor, 39-35-0065) is 33.1 [mu]g/m\3\,
and Steubenville (Steubenville monitor, 39-081-0017) is 29.8 [mu]g/
m\3\.\11\ See the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville LMP's, Chapter 5
and associated appendices, located in the docket for this action, for
details of this computation. While re-entrained road dust was not
identified as a significant contributor to PM2.5
concentrations in any of the three areas, OEPA submitted the results of
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis (as described in
attachment B of the PM10 LMP Guidance) as part of the LMPs
for the areas. The motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test
results adjusted for VMT growth for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville
show a future projected DV based on projected mobile source growth of
23.0, 24.6, and 24.4 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, and therefore are below
the calculated site-specific CDVs of 30.5, 33.1, and 29.8 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. Conservatively, OEPA considered all PM2.5
precursors and direct PM2.5 in their analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OEPA consulted with the Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT), EPA, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency, Stark
County (Canton), Akron County (Cleveland), and the Brooke Hancock
Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Commission (Steubenville) to
generate the projected VMT growth from 2017 through 2033 for Canton,
Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5
maintenance areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, this specific on-road PM2.5 emissions
analysis is most critical for areas where re-entrained road dust has
been identified as a significant contributor to PM2.5
concentrations. While this is not the case in any of the three areas,
OEPA submitted the results of the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis (as described in Attachment B of the PM10 LMP
Guidance) as part of the LMPs for the areas. EPA clarified in the 2022
PM2.5 LMP Guidance, which was released after Ohio submitted
its SIP revisions, that an area submitting the second 10-year
maintenance plan may be eligible for the LMP option as long as
monitored air quality data and VMT trends support the LMP option. We
propose to find that the state's analysis of VMT using the on-road
emissions test satisfies the obligation to demonstrate that motor
vehicle emissions growth in the remaining maintenance period cannot
reasonably be expected to cause a violation of the NAAQS.
    We think this is particularly so given the air quality trends in
each area provided in the state's submission. From the time the areas
started attaining the NAAQS in 2013 through 2019, ambient
PM2.5 concentrations have decreased substantially. There has
been a 19, 14.3, and 23.2 percent decrease in the annual 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in Canton,
Cleveland, and Steubenville, respectively, during this time period.\12\

Given the current PM2.5 design values in these 3 areas, and
the demonstrated downward trend in PM2.5 concentrations over
the last 10 years, we propose to find that the state has adequately
demonstrated that, consistent with 40 CFR 93.109(e) and the
PM2.5 Guidance, it would be unreasonable to expect that
these areas will experience a growth in motor vehicle emissions
sufficient to cause a violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Where available, 2019 and 2013 monitor data was used at
each monitoring site to compare the percent decrease, averaged
across the area. While 2020 monitoring data was provided in OEPA's
submission, EPA chose to examine 2019 for any concerns of COVID
disproportionally decreasing emissions. Where 2013 data was not
available due to data completeness issues, 2012 data was used and
where 2019 data was not available, the closest year prior to 2019
with available data was used, and no earlier than 2017. See
``EPA_analysis_CantonClevelandSteubenville_PM2.5LMP.xlsx''
 provided in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA therefore proposes to find that the Canton, Cleveland, and
Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance areas meet the
qualification criteria set forth in the PM2.5 LMP Guidance.
Under the LMP option, the state will be expected to determine on a
regular basis that the criteria are still being met. If the state
determines that the LMP criteria are not being met, it should take
action to reduce PM2.5 concentrations enough to requalify.
One possible approach the state could take is to implement the
contingency measures contained in its maintenance plan. See Chapter 7
of each of the state's submittals, placed in the docket for this
action, for a description of the contingency measures. If the attempt
to reduce PM2.5 concentrations fails, or if it succeeds but
in future years it becomes necessary again to address increasing
PM2.5 concentrations in an area, that area will no longer
qualify for the LMP option.

B. Attainment Inventory

    As noted above, states that qualify for an LMP must still meet the
other elements of a maintenance plan, as articulated in the Calcagni
Memo. This includes an attainment year emissions inventory.
    OEPA's Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville PM2.5 LMP
submissions include emissions inventories, with a base year of 2017.
These inventories were prepared as part of the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory \13\ Version 2 under EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (73
FR 76539, December 17, 2008). The 2017 base year represents the most
recent emissions inventory data available when the state prepared the
submissions, is representative of the level of emissions during a
period of time that the areas show monitored attainment of the NAAQS,
and is consistent with the data used to determine applicability of the
LMP option (i.e., having no violations of the NAAQS during the 5-year
period used to calculate the design value).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-national-emissionsinventory-nei-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Air Quality Monitoring Network

    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify the attainment status of the area. OEPA continues to operate a
PM2.5 monitoring network sited and maintained in accordance
with Federal siting and design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in
consultation with EPA Region 5. OEPA submitted the 2022-2023 Annual
Monitoring Network Plan,\14\ which EPA approved on November 28,
2022.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See OEPA's Air Monitoring website containing the annual
network plans at https://epa.ohio.gov/divisions-and-offices/air-pollution-control/reports-and-data/air-monitoring.
    \15\ See EPA'S Approval Letter for OEPA'S 2022-2023 Annual
Network Monitoring Plan in the docket of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its submission, OEPA commits to continued operation of at least
one EPA-approved PM2.5 monitoring site in the Canton and
Steubenville maintenance areas and 3 in the Cleveland maintenance area
through the end of the maintenance planning periods, 2033, and will
continue to operate the monitors consistent with the EPA-approved OEPA
annual network plan in order to meet the EPA requirements at 40 CFR
part 58. Currently, there are 2 monitors in the Canton maintenance
area, 11 monitors in the Cleveland maintenance area, and 3 monitors in
the Steubenville maintenance area.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. The NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations is equal to or
less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (40 CFR 50.6). As stated previously, OEPA
commits to continue to operate a monitoring network in accordance with
40 CFR part 58. In addition, OEPA commits to verifying continued
attainment of the PM2.5 standard through the maintenance
plan period with the operation of an appropriate PM2.5
monitoring network. In developing the second 10-year maintenance plan,
OEPA evaluated the most recent 3 years of complete, quality-assured
data for the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas at
the time the submissions were made (2017 through 2019) to verify
continued attainment of the standard. Air quality data from 2020, 2021,
and preliminary air quality data from 2022 confirm continued attainment
of the standard as described in Table 1.

E. Contingency Provisions

    CAA section 175A(d) states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the relevant NAAQS which may occur after redesignation
of the area to attainment. As explained in the Calcagni Memo, these
contingency provisions are an enforceable part of the federally
approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly identify the events
that would ``trigger'' the adoption and implementation of a contingency
provision, the contingency provision(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
State would adopt and implement the provision(s). The Calcagni Memo
states that EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a
case-by-case basis. At a minimum, the plan must require that the state
implement all measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan
for the area prior to redesignation.
    In the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville PM2.5 LMP
submissions, OEPA included maintenance plan contingency provisions to
ensure the areas will continue to meet the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submissions describe a process and a
timeline to identify, evaluate, and select the appropriate contingency
measure(s) from a list of measures in the event of a violation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. The contingency measures that may be
implemented to reduce emissions are listed in Chapter 7 of the LMP
submissions in the docket for this action. The submissions describe the
metropolitan planning organization or regional council of government
consultation that will occur after a violation in order to determine
the control measures necessary to assure attainment of the NAAQS that
can be implemented within 18 months from the close of the calendar year
that prompted the violation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM2.5
LMPs for Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 maintenance areas submitted by OEPA. EPA's review of
the air quality data for the maintenance areas indicates that they
continue to show attainment well below the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and meet

all the LMP qualifying criteria as described in this action. If
finalized, EPA's approval of these LMPs will satisfy the CAA section
175A requirements for the second 10-year period for the Canton,
Cleveland, and Steubenville 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
areas. EPA is also initiating the process to determine if the LMPs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As discussed in
Section II.B, EPA may complete that process either in its final action
on these LMPs or through a separate process provided for in the
transportation conformity regulations. See 40 CFR 93.118(f).

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    To identify environmental burdens and potentially susceptible
populations in Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville, EPA performed a
screening-level analysis using EPA's environmental justice (EJ)
screening and mapping tool (EJSCREEN).\16\ The results of EPA's
screening analysis are being provided for informational and
transparency purposes, and EPA did not rely on these findings in its
action on Ohio's submissions. EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to
evaluate environmental and demographic indicators within each county
contained in the Canton, Cleveland, and Steubenville maintenance areas
including Stark County in Canton, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Medina,
Portage, and Summit Counties in Cleveland, and Jefferson County in
Steubenville. Each of the tool output reports are contained in the
docket for this action. EPA's screening-level analysis indicates that
communities affected by this action score below the national average
for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index'', which is the average of an
area's percent minority and percent low-income populations, i.e., the
two demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order 12898,
apart from Cuyahoga County in Cleveland, where the demographic index is
two percent higher than the national average. Additionally, the results
indicate that most of the counties in these areas score below the 80th
percentile (in comparison to the nation as a whole) in the 12 EJ
Indices established by EPA, which include a combination of
environmental and demographic information. Cuyahoga, Lorain, Portage,
and Summit counties are above the 80th percentile for the wastewater
discharge EJ index, and Cuyahoga County is above the 80th percentile
for the hazardous waste proximity index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action would approve the second 10-year limited
maintenance plans submitted by Ohio for the Canton, Steubenville, and
Cleveland areas. We expect that this action, which would, among other
things, find that the state has adequately provided for maintenance of
the NAAQS and approve the state's contingency plan to address any
potential violations of the NAAQS in the future, will be generally
neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on
all populations in the three areas, including people of color and low-
income populations. At a minimum, this action would not worsen any
existing air quality and is expected to ensure the areas are meeting
requirements to maintain the air quality standards. Further, there is
no information in the record indicating that this action is expected to
have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental
effects on a particular group of people.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' EPA further defines
the term fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.''
    OEPA did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittals; the CAA neither prohibits nor requires such an evaluation.
Consistent with EPA's discretion under the CAA, EPA has evaluated the
environmental justice considerations of this action, as is described
above in the section title, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.''
Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is
expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the
affected area. In addition, there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for
people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

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: June 28, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023-14103 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


11856 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices 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/. 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. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. EUP EPA has extended the following EUP: 241   EUP   141. Extension. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709   3528. This EUP allows the use of 289.27 pounds of the termiticide chlorfenapyr not to exceed 22 acres of structures to evaluate the control of termites. The program is authorized only in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. The EUP extension is effective from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004.

Authority: 7 U. S. C. 136c.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits. Dated: February 24, 2003. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   5476 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0054; FRL   7294   9]

Pesticides: Procedures Concerning the Development, Modification, and Implementation of Policy Guidance Documents; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability for comment of a paper discussing procedural guidance for policy development in the Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP). The procedures have two goals: To increase public participation in the development, modification and implementation of OPP policy guidance documents; and to clarify that while such documents are non binding policy statements and not legally binding rules, they nonetheless play an important role in helping to ensure a consistent starting point for OPP decision making. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0054, must be received on or before May 12, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Jordan, Senior Policy Adviser ( 7501C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   1049; fax number: ( 703) 308   4776; e mail address: jordan. william@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the persons or entities who may be interested in or affected by this action. If you have questions in this regard, 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 identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0054. 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. 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. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11857 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0054. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0054. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0054. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0054. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1 11858 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Notices 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA is making available for comment a paper on procedures for developing, modifying, and implementing its policy guidance documents concerning the regulation of pesticides. These procedures have two goals. The first is to increase public participation in the development, modification, and implementation of OPP policy guidance documents; the second is to clarify that while such documents are non binding policy statements and not legally binding rules, they nonetheless play an important role in helping to ensure a consistent starting point for OPP decision making. EPA will consider the comments received and plans to reissue the paper with revisions, as appropriate, after considering and responding to all significant comments.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, pesticides, policy, guidance.

Dated: March 4, 2003. Marcia E. Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   5916 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7464   3]

Clean Water Act Section 303( d): Final Agency Action on 1 Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces final agency action on 1 TMDL prepared by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in Louisiana's Ouachita river basin, under section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). Documents from the administrative record file for the 1 TMDL, including TMDL calculations and responses to comments, may be viewed at http:// www. epa. gov/ region6/ water/ tmdl. htm. The administrative record file may be examined by calling or writing Ms. Ellen Caldwell at the following address. Please contact Ms. Caldwell to schedule an inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Caldwell, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U. S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202   2733, ( 214) 665   7513.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996, two Louisiana environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Louisiana Environmental Action Network ( plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the EPA, styled Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96   0527, ( E. D. La.). Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to establish Louisiana TMDLs in a timely manner.

EPA Takes Final Agency Action on 1 TMDL By this notice EPA is taking final agency action on the following 1 TMDL for waters located within the Ouachita river basin:

Subsegment Waterbody name Pollutant 081602 ........................... Little River   From Bear Creek to Catahoula Lake ( Scenic) ............................. Mercury in fish tissue.

EPA requested the public to provide EPA with any significant data or information that may impact the 1 TMDL in Federal Register notice 67 FR 77994 ( December 20, 2002). The comments received and EPA's response to comments may be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ region6/ water/ tmdl. htm.

Dated: February 28, 2003. Oscar Ramirez, Jr., Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6. [ FR Doc. 03   5714 Filed 3   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7465   1]

National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards: Availability of Application and Nomination Information AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of application and nomination information for the U. S. EPA's 2003 Clean Water Act Recognition Awards. The awards recognize municipalities and industries for outstanding and innovative technological achievements in wastewater treatment and pollution abatement programs. Recognition is made for projects or programs in the following categories: outstanding operations and maintenance ( O& M) at wastewater treatment facilities; biosolids exemplary management; pretreatment program excellence; outstanding storm water management; and, combined sewer overflow ( CSO) control program excellence. The awards are intended to educate the public about the contributions wastewater treatment facilities make to clean water; to encourage public support for municipal and industrial efforts in effective wastewater management, biosolids disposal and reuse, and wet weather pollution control; and, to recognize communities that use innovative practices to meet CWA permitting requirements. DATES: Nominations are due to EPA headquarters no later than May 30, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Applications and nomination information can be obtained from the EPA regional offices and our Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ owm/ intnet. htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria E. Campbell, Telephone: ( 202) 564   0628. Facsimile Number: ( 202) 501   2396. E mail: campbell. maria@ epa. gov. Also visit the Office of Wastewater Management's Web page at http:// www. epa. gov/ owm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CWA Recognition Awards are authorized by section 501( a) and ( e) of the Clean Water Act, and 33 U. S. C. 1361( a) and ( e). Interested parties must be in compliance with all applicable CWA requirements, or otherwise have a satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality. Applications and nominations for the national award must be recommended by EPA regions. A regulation in the Federal Register on February 8, 2002, ( 67 FR 6138, February 8, 2002) establishes a framework for the annual VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 39 Mar 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12MRN1. SGM 12MRN1


MEMORANDUM

Date:	December 16, 2011
Subject:	Limited Use Oil-fired EGUs
From:	Nick Hutson, ESG/SPPD/OAQPS
To:  	EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

      The attached Microsoft(R) Excel file [`limited use oil.xlsx'] contains two worksheets. The first includes all oil-fired units that have reported fuel usage information to EPA. It identifies all the units with capacity factors below five percent in 2010, all the units with capacity factors between five and ten percent and the units with capacity factors above ten percent. The second worksheet breaks out the five to ten percent units and explores the compliance costs for those units. As described in Chapter 3 of the RIA, most units are able to comply with the rule through the use of natural gas which was estimated to be the lowest cost fuel option. It is important to understand, that fuel oil use in 2010 is not likely to be representative of fuel oil use in later years. This is because projections show fuel oil prices increasing much more rapidly than those for natural gas. Shown below are the EIA's 2010 reported spread in residual oil and natural gas prices and the projected future spreads. Even in 2010, we would have projected a preference for gas over oil, however, since these are annual averages, there are likely to be times when spot prices are closer (or even reversed). As the annual average prices increase, the times where spot prices are reversed should be less, correlating to less oil use.

                                     Year
                                 Price Spread*
                                     2010
                                     $6.41
                                     2015
                                     $9.27
                                     2020
                                    $11.78
                                     2025
                                    $13.88
                                     2030
                                    $15.46
                 * EIA projected differential between annual
                average prices for residual oil and natural gas

      Recognizing that there may be unit level supply limitations we looked at the individual plants and have annotated the spreadsheet with links pointing out that many of the units are co-located with new natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units (or, in some cases, scheduled to be replaced by NGCC units) indicating that local supply issues should not be a problem.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12298-12300]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1325; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-40]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Orangeburg, SC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Orangeburg,
SC, to accommodate the additional airspace needed for the Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) developed for Orangeburg
Municipal Airport. This action shall

enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at the airport. This action also shall make a minor
adjustment to the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA- 2010-1325; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-40, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-1325; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-40) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-1325; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-40.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace at Orangeburg,
SC to provide controlled airspace required to support the SIAPs for
Orangeburg Municipal Airport. The existing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface would be modified for the safety
and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Orangeburg
Municipal Airport, Orangeburg, SC.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND CLASS E AIRSPACE
AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Orangeburg, SC [Amended]

Orangeburg Municipal Airport, SC
    (Lat. 33[deg]27'39'' N., long. 80[deg]51'32''W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of the Orangeburg Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 18, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-5096 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 179)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54434-54437]
[DOCID:fr15se06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 712 and 716

 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0055; FRL-8094-8]
RIN 2070-AB08 and 2070-AB11

Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting Rule and Health and
Safety Data Reporting Rule; Revision of Effective Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; revision of effective dates.

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

SUMMARY: This document is revising the effective date of two rules
published in the Federal Register of August 16, 2006: The Preliminary
Assessment Information Reporting Rule (PAIR) and the Health and Safety
Data Reporting Rule because of the relocation of the dockets for these
two rules. Structural damage to the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) caused
by flooding in June 2006 necessitated the relocation of the EPA/DC.
Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, the relocation of EPA/DC

and resumption of normal operations has taken place during the period
that withdrawal requests for removal of chemicals from these two rules
would be arriving; therefore, EPA has decided that the effective dates
for these two rules will be revised to ensure that all requests that
were submitted to EPA by August 30, 2006, for withdrawal of chemicals
listed in these two rules have been accounted for and addressed.

DATES: The actions in this document are effective Sepember 15, 2006.
    The effective date for the PAIR rule amending 40 CFR part 712
published at 71 FR 47122, August 16, 2006, is delayed to September 29,
2006, except for the amendments to sections 712.28 and 712.30(c), which
contained technical corrections.
    The effective date for the Health and Safety Data Reporting rule
amending 40 CFR part 716 at 71 FR 47130, August 16, 2006, is delayed to
September 29, 2006, except for the amendments to sections 716.30,
716.35, 716.60, and 716.105, which contained technical corrections.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0014 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0055. All documents in the docket are listed on the regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. The EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) suffered structural damage due to flooding in June
2006. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations, there will be
temporary changes to the EPA/DC during the clean-up. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room, which was temporarily closed due to flooding, has been
relocated in the EPA Headquarters Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number
3334) in EPA West, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. EPA visitors are required
to show photographic identification and sign the EPA visitor log.
Visitors to the EPA/DC Public Reading Room will be provided with an
EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times while in the EPA
Building and returned to the guard upon departure. In addition,
security personnel will escort visitors to and from the new EPA/DC
Public Reading Room location. Up-to-date information about the EPA/DC
is on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For technical information contact: Joe Nash, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) any of the chemical substances
listed in the August 16, 2006 PAIR rule or August 16, 2006 Health and
Safety Data Reporting rule. Entities potentially affected by this
action may include, but are not limited to:
     Chemical manufacturers (including importers), (NAICS codes
325, 32411), e.g., persons who manufacture (defined by statute to
include import) one or more of the subject chemical substances.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. 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 technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using the electronic docket, 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 parts 712 and 716 are
available on E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is revising the effective dates on which certain chemicals
would be subject to the reporting requirements under TSCA section 8(a)
and 8(d). On August 16, 2006, EPA issued a final PAIR rule under TSCA
section 8(a) (40 CFR part 712) which requires manufacturers (including
importers) of chemicals in the category of voluntary HPV Challenge
Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals on the ITC's TSCA section 4(e)
Priority Testing List to submit a one-time report on general
production/importation volume, end use, and exposure-related
information to EPA (71 FR 47122) (FRL-7764-9). Also on August 16, 2006,
EPA issued a final Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA
section 8(d) (40 CFR part 716) which requires manufacturers (including
importers) of chemicals in this category of voluntary HPV Challenge
Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals to submit certain unpublished
health and safety data to EPA (71 FR 47130) (FRL-7764-7). The effect of
this revision of the rules' effective dates is that the listed
chemicals will not be subject to the reporting requirements imposed by
the final TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) rules issued on August 16, 2006,
until September 29, 2006.
    Because of these changes in effective dates the table in paragraph
(e) of Sec.  712.30 of the final PAIR rule published in the Federal
Register issue of August 16, 2006 (Ref. 1) is amended by removing
``September 15, 2006'' under the column heading ``Effective date'' and
adding in its place ``September 29, 2006.'' The table in paragraph (e)
is also amended by removing ``November 14, 2006'' under the column
heading ``Reporting date'' and adding in its place ``November 28,
2006.'' In Sec.  716.120 of the final Health and Safety Data Reporting
rule published in the Federal Register of August 16, 2006 (Ref. 2), the
table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing ``September 15, 2006''
under the column heading ``Effective date'' and adding in its place
``September 29, 2006.'' The table in paragraph (d) is also amended by
removing ``November 14, 2006'' under the column heading ``Sunset date''
and adding in its place ``November 28, 2006.''
    The rules published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2006,
provided manufacturers (including importers) of

any of the chemicals included in the two rules the opportunity, as
specified in 40 CFR 712.30(c) and 40 CFR 716.105(c), to send a written
request to EPA to withdraw a chemical from these two rules. These
requests for withdrawal had to provide detailed reasons why reporting
required by these rules was not warranted for the chemical and the
written requests had to be received by EPA on or before August 30,
2006.
    All requests for withdrawal were required to be submitted to the
OPPT Document Control Office which is linked to EPA/DC. Structural
damage to the EPA/DC caused by flooding in June 2006 necessitated the
relocation of the EPA/DC. Although the EPA/DC is continuing operations,
the relocation of EPA/DC and resumption of normal operations has taken
place during the period that withdrawal requests for removal of
chemicals from these two rules would be arriving. Consequently, EPA has
decided that the effective dates for these two rules will be revised to
ensure that all requests that were submitted to EPA by August 30, 2006,
for withdrawal of chemicals listed in these two rules have been
accounted for and addressed.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    EPA promulgated the PAIR rule under TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C.
2607(a)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 712. The final rule issued
by EPA on August 16, 2006, amended the model TSCA section 8(a) rule by
adding the ITC category of certain voluntary HPV Challenge Program
orphan (unsponsored) chemicals (Ref. 1). This Federal Register document
announces EPA's decision, under EPA's authority under TSCA section 8(a)
(15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), to revise the effective date of the amended TSCA
section 8(a) rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006 (Ref. 1).
    EPA promulgated the model Health and Safety Data Reporting rule
under TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40
CFR part 716. The final rule issued by EPA on August 16, 2006, amended
the model TSCA section 8(d) rule by adding the ITC category of certain
voluntary HPV Challenge Program orphan (unsponsored) chemicals (Ref.
2). This Federal Register document announces EPA's decision, under
EPA's authority under TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), to revise
the effective date of the amended TSCA section 8(d) rule issued by EPA
on August 16, 2006 (Ref. 2).

C. Why is this Action Being Issued as a Final Rule?

    As with the August 16, 2006 rules, EPA is publishing this action as
a final rule without prior notice and an opportunity for comment
pursuant to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 712.30(c) and
716.105(c). EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to make
these amendments without prior notice and comment. EPA believes notice
and an opportunity for comment on this action are unnecessary.
    Under the PAIR and Health and Safety Data Reporting rules, the
August 16, 2006 rules adding chemicals to the lists of subject
chemicals were to be effective 30 days after publication. This action
revises the effective date of the August 16, 2006 rules from September
15, 2006 to September 29, 2006. EPA is not revising any other
provisions of the PAIR or Health and Safety Data Reporting rules. This
revision will not have any substantive effect on manufacturers subject
to the rules. This revision will simply provide additional time for EPA
to account for and address all requests to withdraw chemicals. In light
of this, EPA does not believe comments on this action are necessary.

III. References

    The official dockets for this rule are the dockets established for
the TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rule (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0014) (Ref. 1) and the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data
Reporting Health and Safety Data Reporting rule (docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0055) (Ref. 2). These official public dockets are
available for review as specified in ADDRESSES. The following is a
listing of the materials referenced in this document that have been
placed in the official dockets for this rule:
    1. EPA. 2006. Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting;
Addition of Certain Chemicals. Federal Register (71 FR 47122, August
16, 2006) (FRL-7764-9). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr
 .

    2. EPA. 2006. Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of Certain
Chemicals. Federal Register (71 FR 47130, August 16, 2006) (FRL-7764-
7). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted actions
under TSCA sections 8 (a) and (d) related to the PAIR and Health and
Safety Data Reporting rules from the requirements of Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). In addition, this rule does not impose any new requirements and
will result in a burden and cost reduction; therefore it is not subject
to OMB review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in TSCA sections
8(a) PAIR and 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rules have already
been approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB control numbers 2070-0054
(EPA ICR No. 0586) and 2070-0004 (EPA ICR No. 0575). The collection
activities in this final rule are captured by the existing approval and
do not require additional review and/or approval by OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this final rule eliminates reporting requirements, the
Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., that this revocation of
certain requirements under TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, EPA has determined that this rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. In addition, EPA has
determined that this rule will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Accordingly, the rule is not subject to the
requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule has no Federalism implications, because it will not have
substantial direct effects 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).

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

    This rule has no tribal implications because it will not have
substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23,1997), does not apply to this rule because this is not an
``economically significant'' regulatory action as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and it does not concern an environmental health
or safety risk that may have a disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect
energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Because this action does not involve any technical standards,
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), does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not involve special considerations of
environmental justice-related issues pursuant to Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

V. Congressional Review Act

    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 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. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 712 and 716

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Health
and safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 12, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

0
Under EPA's authority, TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d), the documents
published on August 16, 2006, amending 40 CFR part 712 (71 FR 47122)
and 40 CFR part 716 (71 FR 47130) are corrected as follows:

PARTS 712 and 716--[CORRECTED]

Sec.  712.30  [Corrected]

0
1. Beginning at 71 FR 47126, in Sec.  712.30, in the table in paragraph
(e), under the column heading, ``Effective date,'' remove ``September
15, 2006'' each time it appears and insert ``September 29, 2006'' in
its place.
0
2. Beginning at 71 FR 47126, in Sec.  712.30, in the table in paragraph
(e), under the column heading, ``Reporting date,'' remove ``November
14, 2006'' each time it appears and insert ``November 28, 2006'' in its
place.

Sec.  716.120  [Corrected]

0
3. Beginning at 71 FR 47136, in Sec.  716.120, in the table in
paragraph (d), under the column heading, ``Effective date,'' remove
``September 15, 2006'' each time it appears and insert ``September 29,
2006'' in its place.
0
4. Beginning at 71 FR 47136, in Sec.  716.120, in the table in
paragraph (d), under the column heading, ``Sunset date,'' remove
``November 14, 2006'' each time it appears and insert ``November 28,
2006'' in its place.
[FR Doc. E6-15358 Filed 9-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S