[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66484-66490]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21442]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657; FRL-10014-53-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology Determinations
for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. This revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for individual major
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action, EPA is only
approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-case'') RACT
determinations for nine major sources. These RACT evaluations were
submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.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. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 5, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 85 FR 26643. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for nine of the 10 sources included in the subject
SIP submission for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The case-
by-case RACT determinations for these sources were included in a SIP
revision submitted by PADEP on April 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The portion of PADEP's SIP submission related to American
Craft Brewery, LLC was withdrawn on October 21, 2019. EPA will be
taking action on this source in a future rulemaking action, once
resubmitted by PADEP for approval into the PA SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS.
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth.
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major
source'' definitions

established under the CAA based on their classification. In
Pennsylvania, sources located in areas outside of moderate or above
nonattainment areas, as part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are
subject to source thresholds of 50 tons per year (tpy). CAA section
184(b).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania.
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be
implemented.\2\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental
SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address
various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through the current rulemaking,
certain source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section II of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental
SIP revision. 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revision
addressed in this rule is part of PADEP's efforts to meet the
conditions of its supplemental SIP revision and EPA's conditional
approval of the RACT II Rule.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-case
RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa.
Code 129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a
case-by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at
each of the major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements for nine major sources of NOX and/or
VOC in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1.

 Table 1--Nine Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under
                                      the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Major source
       Major source (county)            1-Hour ozone RACT    pollutant (NOX and/or    RACT II permit (effective
                                        source? (RACT I)              VOC)                      date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Co. (Lehigh).............  No....................  VOC..................           39-00040 (9/5/2018)
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc,     No....................  NOX and VOC..........          06-05040D (1/3/2019)
 Smelter Plant (Berks).
Ellwood Quality Steels Co.           Yes...................  NOX and VOC..........         37-00264 (10/13/2017)
 (Lawrence).
GE Transportation--Erie Plant        Yes...................  NOX and VOC..........          25-00025 (2/21/2018)
 (Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap (Centre).....  Yes...................  NOX..................           14-00002 (2/5/2018)
Hazleton Generation (Luzerne)......  Yes...................  NOX..................          40-00021 (6/19/2018)
Helix Ironwood (Lebanon)...........  No....................  NOX..................          38-05019 (9/24/2018)
Magnesita Refractories (York)......  Yes...................  NOX..................         67-05001 (11/27/2018)
Penn State University (Centre).....  Yes...................  NOX..................         14-00003 (12/13/2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits)
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1,
along with the permit effective date, and are part of the docket for
this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0657.\4\ EPA is

incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information
provided by PADEP in its SIP revision submittals for nine major sources
of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to find that
PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions establish
limits and/or controls on individual sources that are reasonable and
appropriately considered technically and economically feasible
controls.
    PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP-approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment, reasonable further progress with
the NAAQS, or section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM, and its associated
technical support document (TSD), and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received comments from five commenters on the May 5, 2020 NPRM.
85 FR 26643. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are discussed
in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can be found in
the docket for this rule action.
    Comment 1: One commenter stated that the ``PADEP economic benchmark
for RACT determination is low and not appropriate for all case-by-case
situations.'' The commenter then goes on to assert that ``PADEP should
not use any absolute amount in any case-by-case RACT economic
determinations.'' The commenter claims that this ``presumptive
benchmark allows Pennsylvania major sources to emit significant amounts
of NOX which makes it difficult for New Jersey (NJ) and
other neighboring states to attain the ozone NAAQS.'' Finally, the
commenter mentions New Jersey's 2004 RACT rule and cost estimates they
found acceptable.
    Response 1: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement.
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\5\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control technology was feasible.
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states:
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX;
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per
ton NOX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \6\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels
achieved by the application and consideration of available control
technologies, after considering both the economic and technological
circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286
(May 9, 2019).
    Comment 2: The commenter states that EPA and PADEP should have
considered a shared Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system for
multiple test cells under Source ID 372 at GE Erie as RACT. The
commenter claims that the facility could have capitalized on a shared
SCR system where emissions could be reduced at multiple test cells by
one or two SCR systems, making it a cost-effective approach with large
emission reductions.
    Response 2: The GE Erie facility includes an engine lab test
facility. The commenter raises concerns about emission controls at test
cells in Source ID 372. Six of the test cells found in Source ID 372
(test cells B, C, D, E, F and G located in GE Erie's Building 18E) were
evaluated for NOX and VOC RACT. An SCR system was evaluated
as to whether it would be NOX RACT by PADEP per the case-by-
case requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP found that the SCR
system was technically feasible; however, it was determined to be cost
prohibitive when applied to an individual test cell. In follow up
correspondence with GE Erie, PADEP specifically asked the company for
justification as to why the Source 372 test cells could not be combined
into a single stack with a single control technology, such as a shared
SCR system, versus installing control technology for each individual
test cell. In its response, GE identified that the multiple test cells
found in Source ID 372 presently each have their own stack and
explained the several design and operational considerations
necessitating that each emission point have an individual stack.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See email dated December 13, 2018 from Hubert Flaherty,
PADEP, to Lynn Khalife, PADEP, which includes an email dated June
15, 2017 from GE Transportation to PADEP, which is part of the
record in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis identified that there is a wide range of potential
operating conditions across test cells that result in a broad range of
differences in air flow, velocity, and temperature associated with
those operating conditions. The differences in air flow, velocity, and
temperature associated with these different operating modes varies by
orders of magnitude. A dedicated air pollution control system for each
stack provides the facility the opportunity to optimize each test cell
to run in the mode required by that stack configuration at that
particular time. It concluded that it is technically

infeasible to design and operate a single air pollution control system
that can accommodate the necessary range of operation that would be
required in a multiple line context.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the analysis considered that the engine test cell
exhaust handling systems must operate with minimal backpressure that
mimics that of a locomotive in order to conduct meaningful testing. It
concluded that it is technically infeasible to design and operate a
single air pollution control system that can minimize inherent
backpressure and prevent cross feed backpressure from one operating
engine into another. Another factor considered in the analysis was GE
Erie's claims that multiple air pollution control systems provide
operational redundancy that protects business continuity in the event
of system interruption, which the company identified as occurring with
meaningful frequency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA agrees with the assessment presented by PADEP that a shared air
pollution control system, such as an SCR system, for the multiple test
cells found in Source ID 372 is technically infeasible. Therefore, per
25 Pa. Code 129.99, this potential control strategy would not require a
cost assessment and would be determined infeasible as NOX
RACT for Source ID 372.
    Comment 3: The commenter notes that for Penn State's RACT analysis,
PADEP has determined that the previous RACT I NOX emission
limit of 107.5 tpy for each boiler is to be superseded with a new RACT
II natural gas usage restriction of 520 million cubic feet/year and a
No. 2 fuel oil usage restriction of 743,000 gallons/year. The commenter
asks what this means and asks that EPA clarify whether the 107.5 tpy
NOX emission limit is to be removed from Pennsylvania's SIP.
If the RACT I annual limit is intended to be removed from the SIP, the
commenter demands that EPA re-propose Penn State's RACT determination
because the removal was not mentioned in this proposed notice.
    Response 3: The commenter correctly notes that EPA indicated in its
TSD that PADEP had determined that the NOX RACT annual limit
of 107.5 tpy per boiler for Source IDs 036 and 037, two East Campus
Steam Plant, would be superseded with the new RACT II natural gas and
No. 2 fuel oil usage restrictions. The RACT I 107.5 tpy NOX
limit will not be removed from the SIP. This RACT II rule will add the
RACT II limits to the SIP and clarify that its more stringent
requirements have superseded the prior annual limit and, in effect,
will govern.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for Helix
Ironwood, GE Transportation--Erie, Carpenter, Pennsylvania State
University, Ellwood Quality Steels, East Penn Manufacturing,
Magnesita Refractories, Hazleton Generation, and Graymont PA,
included some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those
facilities. EPA wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because PADEP analyzed what
should be RACT under operating conditions that included annual
limits from the existing facility permit, and PADEP included those
requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those
annual limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the
purpose of SIP strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the RACT process, PADEP, based on a statistical
evaluation of Penn State's historical test data for the two boilers,
reduced the NOX short-term emission limit for each boiler
from 0.20 lbs/MMBtu to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu when fired on natural gas and
0.12 lbs/MMBtu when fired on No. 2 fuel oil. A recent Non-Attainment
New Source Review (NNSR) restriction established the usage restriction
of 520 million cubic feet of natural gas in any 12 consecutive month
period per boiler for the two boilers. This fuel usage restriction,
coupled with the NOX RACT short-term emission limit of 0.20
lbs/MMBtu (which has now been lowered to 0.18 lbs/MMBtu), equates to
expected emissions of 53.7 tpy. As part of the NOX RACT
determination for the two boilers, PADEP has proposed adding the new
fuel restrictions along with the short-term emission limit to the SIP.
    PADEP's Technical Review Memo (PADEP Memo), dated August 9, 2017,
and EPA's TSD, both of which are part of the record in this docket,
clearly discuss the outdated nature of the prior NOX RACT I
determination of 107.5 tpy for Source IDs 036 and 037 and that it would
be less stringent than the new RACT II determination. As PADEP
indicated in its review memo, ``[t]he existing RACT annual limit of
107.5 TPY is out-of-date due to the NNSR restriction established in the
operating permit for natural gas usage. This restriction, along with
the 0.2 lbs/MMBtu limit, equates to 53.7 tpy. This is the potential to
emit (PTE) used in the economic feasibility analyses noted above.''
PADEP Memo, page 5.
    As the RACT I annual NOX limit of 107.5 will not be
removed from the SIP, there is no need for any additional notice.
    Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA should determine that for
Source IDs 036 and 037 at Penn State, RACT is the installation of SCR
because the facility determined the cost effectiveness of SCR to be
$4,817 per ton of NOX removed. The commenter states that
this level of cost effectiveness was determined economically feasible
for the purposes of RACT when EPA approved rules for both New York and
New Jersey. The commenter demands that EPA retract Penn State's RACT
determination and apply the cost effectiveness thresholds previously
approved for New York and New Jersey.
    Response 4: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement.
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\11\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold of $2,800 per ton
of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of VOC controlled for
RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even evaluating control
technology options with an additional 25% margin, an upper bound cost-
effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton NOX controlled and
$7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not affect the add-on control
technology decisions required by RACT. Id. Pennsylvania determined that
these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds did not impact the
determination of what add on control technology was feasible.
Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by other states:
Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois, $2,500-$3,000 per
ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton NOX;
Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York, $5,000-$5,500 per
ton NOX.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \12\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels
achieved by the application and consideration of available control
technologies, after considering both the economic and

technological circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR
20274, 20286 (May 9, 2019).
    Comment 5: The commenter urges EPA to reconsider the VOC limit of
0.30 lbs/ton of steel produced, which was established as RACT for the
electric arc furnace (EAF) at Ellwood Quality Steels, to more closely
align with actual stack test results. The commenter states that the VOC
RACT limit for the EAF should be lower because, in PADEP's RACT
analysis, results are summarized from the facility's last four stack
tests, which averaged an emission rate of 0.14 lbs/ton of steel
produced, with the most recent stack test from October 2016 showing an
average of 0.082 lbs/ton of steel produced.
    Response 5: PADEP conducted a RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99
for VOC emissions at the EAF. The potential control technologies
evaluated were all determined to be technically infeasible for the
source. Additionally, PADEP reviewed EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) for examples of controls and emission limits at EAF facilities
(20 in total). That review revealed that VOC limits (lbs/ton of steel
produced) at EAFs ranged from 0.03 lbs/ton to 0.43 lbs/ton with an
average limit of 0.20 lbs/ton, a range within which Ellwood Quality
Steels' RACT VOC limit falls.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See PADEP's Technical Review Memo, dated April 28, 2017,
which is part of the docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, PADEP determined VOC RACT for the EAF to be
continued operation of the existing RACT I controls--direct evacuation
control, process controls, and scrap management, along with the short-
term VOC emission limit of 0.3 lbs/ton. EPA concluded that PADEP's VOC
RACT determination for the EAF at Ellwood Quality Steels was reasonable
for that specific source and meets statutory and regulatory
requirements.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for nine sources
in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for nine case-by-

case facilities for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie''; ``J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)--York''; ``Con-Lime, Inc'';
``Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte''; ``Williams Generation Company--
Hazleton''; ``General Electric Transportation Systems''; ``The
Pennsylvania State University--University Park''; ``Ellwood Group
Inc''; ``Graybec Lime, Inc''; and ``Bellefonte Lime Company''; and
0
b. Adding the entries at the end of the table: ``Carpenter Co.'';
``East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant''; ``Ellwood Quality
Steels Co. (formerly referenced as Ellwood Group Inc)''; ``GE
Transportation--Erie Plant (formerly referenced as General Electric
Transportation Systems and General Electric Transportation Systems--
Erie)''; ``Graymont Pleasant Gap''; ``Hazleton Generation (formerly
referenced as Williams Generation Company--Hazleton)''; ``Helix
Ironwood''; ``Magnesita Refractories (formerly referenced as J. E.
Baker Co. (Refractories)--York)''; ``Penn State University (formerly
referenced as The Pennsylvania State University--University Park)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional explanations/Sec.
          Name of source                   Permit No.                County             State        EPA approval date      Sec.   52.2063 and 52.2064
                                                                                effective date                                  citations\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation     OP-25-025...............  Erie...............        12/21/94  8/8/95, 60 FR 40292.  See also 52.2064(c)(4).
 Systems--Erie.
J. E. Baker Co. (Refractories)--    OP-67-2001..............  York...............        12/22/94  8/8/95, 60 FR 40292.  See also 52.2064(c)(8).
 York.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc.....................  OP-14-0001..............  Centre.............         6/30/95  6/3/97, 62 FR 30250.  See also 52.2064(c)(5).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte........  OP-14-0001..............  Centre.............          1/7/98  3/9/98, 63 FR 11370.  See also 52.2064(c)(5).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Williams Generation Company--       OP-40-0031A.............  Luzerne............         3/10/00  4/1/03, 68 FR 15661.  See also 52.2064(c)(6).
 Hazleton.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
General Electric Transportation     OP-25-025A..............  Erie...............         8/26/02  4/7/03, 68 FR 16724.  See also 52.2064(c)(4).
 Systems.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
The Pennsylvania State University-- OP-14-0006..............  Centre.............        12/30/98  3/30/05, 70 FR 16118  See also 52.2064(c)(9).
 University Park.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Ellwood Group Inc.................  OP-37-313...............  Lawrence...........         1/31/01  3/30/05, 70 FR 16124  See also 52.2064(c)(3).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Graybec Lime, Inc.................  OP-14-0004..............  Centre.............         4/16/99  4/28/06, 71 FR 25070  See also 52.2064(c)(5).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Bellefonte Lime Company...........  OP-14-0002..............  Centre.............        10/19/98  6/14/06, 71 FR 34259  See also 52.2064(c)(5).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Carpenter Co......................  39-00040................  Lehigh.............          9/5/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(1).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc,    06-05040D...............  Berks..............          1/3/19  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(2).
 Smelter Plant.                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Ellwood Quality Steels Co.          37-00264................  Lawrence...........        10/13/17  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(3).
 (formerly referenced as Ellwood                                                                    Federal Register
 Group Inc).                                                                                citation].
GE Transportation--Erie Plant       25-00025................  Erie...............         2/21/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(4).
 (formerly referenced as General                                                                    Federal Register
 Electric Transportation Systems                                                                    citation].
 and General Electric
 Transportation Systems--Erie).
Graymont Pleasant Gap.............  14-00002................  Centre.............          2/5/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(5).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Hazleton Generation (formerly       40-00021................  Luzerne............         6/19/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(6).
 referenced as Williams Generation                                                                  Federal Register
 Company--Hazleton).                                                                                citation].
Helix Ironwood....................  38-05019................  Lebanon............         9/24/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(7).
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Magnesita Refractories (formerly    67-05001................  York...............        11/27/18  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(8).
 referenced as J. E. Baker Co.                                                                      Federal Register
 (Refractories)--York).                                                                             citation].
Penn State University (formerly     14-00003................  Centre.............        12/13/17  10/20/2020, [INSERT   52.2064(c)(9).
 referenced as The Pennsylvania                                                                     Federal Register
 State University--University                                                                       citation].
 Park).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2064  EPA-Approved Source Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *
    (c) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket
No. EPA-OAR-2019-0657).
    (1) Carpenter Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 39-00040,
issued September 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (2) East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc, Smelter Plant--Incorporating
by reference Permit No. 06-05040D, issued January 3, 2019, as redacted
by Pennsylvania.
    (3) Ellwood Quality Steels Co.--Incorporating by reference Permit
No. 37-00264, issued October 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania. All
permit conditions in the prior RACT Permit No. OP-37-313, issued
January 31, 2001, remain as RACT requirements. See also Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(d) for prior RACT approval.
    (4) GE Transportation--Erie Plant--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 25-00025, issued February 21, 2018, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-25-025A,
issued August 26, 2002. See also Sec. Sec.  52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(5) and
52.2063(c)(198)(i)(B) for prior RACT approvals.
    (5) Graymont Pleasant Gap--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14-00002, issued February 5, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes Graybec Lime, Inc. OP-14-0004 (issued April 16, 1999),
Bellefonte Lime Company. OP-14-0002 (issued October 19, 1998), and Con-
Lime, Inc. OP-14-0001 (issued June 30, 1995 and amended January 7,
1998). Graymont Pleasant Gap is the consolidation of three facilities,
formerly referenced as Graybec Lime, Inc., Bellefonte Lime Company, and
Con-Lime, Inc. (Con-Lime, Inc.--Bellefonte) See Sec. Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(n), 52.2063(d)(1)(q), 52.2063(c)(122)(i)(B)(5), and
52.2063(c)(130)(i)(B)(3) for prior RACT approvals.
    (6) Hazleton Generation--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 40-
00021, issued June 19, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 40-0031A, issued March 10, 2000,
except for Conditions 5-8, 12, and 14-17. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(196)(i)(B)(4) for prior RACT approval.
    (7) Helix Ironwood--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 38-05019,
issued September 24, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania.
    (8) Magnesita Refractories--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
67-05001, issued November 27, 2018, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which
supersedes the prior RACT I Permit No 67-2001, issued December 22,
1994, except for Conditions 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(98)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approval.
    (9) Penn State University--Incorporating by reference Permit No.
14-00003, issued December 13, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania which
supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006, issued December 30,
1998; however, RACT Permit No. OP-14-0006 remains in effect as to
Source ID 035, WCSP Boiler 8, and as to Source IDs 036 and 037, ECSP
Boilers No. 1 and 2, except for Condition 8, which is superseded. See
also Sec.  52.2063(d)(1)(c) for prior RACT approval.

[FR Doc. 2020-21442 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 45551-45554]
[DOCID:fr09au06-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231; FRL-8067-1]

Metaldehyde Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide
metaldehyde, and opens a public comment period on this document. The
Agency's risk assessments and other related documents also are
available in the metaldehyde Docket. Metaldehyde is a molluscicide used
to control snails and slugs on a wide variety of sites, including turf,
ornamentals, berries, citrus, and vegetables. EPA has reviewed
metaldehyde through the public participation process that the Agency
uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and

tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0231, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0231. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

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

Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an E-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your E-mail address

will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jill Bloom, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or E-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 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 claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the
pesticide metaldehyde under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Metaldehyde is
a molluscicide used to control snails and slugs on a wide variety of
sites, including turf, ornamentals, berries, citrus, and vegetables.
EPA has determined that the data base to support reregistration is
substantially complete. The technical registrant of metaldehyde, Lonza,
elected not to support many uses through the development of residue and
other data. Of the uses Lonza is supporting, turf and dichondra lawns
are not eligible for reregistration, mainly based on the risks these
residential uses pose to domestic animals, which may be

poisoned by ingesting metaldehyde pellets intended as snail and slug
baits. The uses of metaldehyde that are eligible for reregistration
are: Ornamentals, citrus, cole crops, several leafy greens (including
lettuce and spinach), tomato, strawberry, berries (including
blackberry, blueberry, currant, elderberry, gooseberry, and
raspberries), artichoke, and grass grown for seed. To mitigate the
risks associated with the eligible uses of metaldehyde, the Agency is
requiring that the registrants implement a number of measures aimed at
reducing exposures to domestic animals and wildlife, mainly through
reduced numbers of applications and reduced application rates, and
product labeling and reformulation. In addition, the Agency is
requiring that the registrants undertake a comprehensive incident
monitoring program, data from which will be used by the Agency to
determine whether these risk mitigation measures adequately reduce
numbers and severity of poisoning incidents for domestic animals. Upon
submission of any required generic and product-specific data pursuant
to the RED, and any necessary changes to metaldehyde registrations and
product labeling (either to address concerns identified in the RED or
resulting from the use of product-specific data), EPA will make a final
reregistration decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) for products
containing metaldehyde.
    EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in
August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for
food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the
new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding
has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the
requisite safety finding for the sole existing metaldehyde tolerance.
    Although the metaldehyde RED was signed on July 27, 2006, certain
components of the document, which did not affect the final regulatory
decision, are undergoing final editing at this time. These components,
including the list of additional generic data requirements, summary of
labeling changes, appendices, and other relevant information, will be
added to the metaldehyde RED when they are complete. None of these
additions will alter the conclusions documented in the July 27, 2006
metaldehyde RED.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, metaldehyde was reviewed
through the modified 4-Phase process. Through this process, EPA worked
extensively with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory
decisions for metaldehyde.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is issuing the
metaldehyde RED for public comment. This comment period is intended to
provide an additional opportunity for public input and a mechanism for
initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
Agency Docket for metaldehyde. Comments received after the close of the
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider
these late comments.
    In particular, during the 60-day comment period following the
publication of this Notice, the Agency is soliciting input on several
of the mitigation measures required by the RED.
    The Agency is specifically seeking public comment on how the
directions on home and garden product labels to exclude children and
domestic animals from treated areas may be enhanced. As an example, the
RED requires that these product labels include a graphic representing
the prohibition for allowing children and domestic animals access to
treated areas (e.g., the words ``Children and Pets'' within a red
circle with a red bar running diagonally through the circle). The
formulators of metaldehyde products have commented that they believe a
``Children and Pets'' graphic of this nature could be misleading to
consumers. Comments on this feature in particular are requested.
    In addition, the Agency seeks public comment on a requirement that
all metaldehyde granular products be formulated with a bright blue
pigment, which anecdotal evidence suggests may deter ingestion by
animals. Some registrants have expressed concern that the blue color
could attract children who might mistake the granules for candy. The
Agency is soliciting input on this issue and data on the potential
effect of the blue color on ingestion of such material by animals. The
registrants are also concerned that the blue color in granules could
transfer to produce or the containers in which harvested produce is
transported, reducing the marketability of the produce. The Agency
believes that the soil-applied baits should have little likelihood of
transferring color to plants, but is seeking public comment on
experience with the pigmented formulations in agricultural sites, where
they are already used.
    The Agency is also seeking input on a prohibition of use for
metaldehyde in strawberries grown as annuals. The annual growth pattern
is typically associated with lower populations of slugs which may do
little economic damage to the fruits. The Agency seeks information to
be able to confirm or refute that the use of metaldehyde on
strawberries grown as annuals is not necessary.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and subsequently will post a Response to Comments
Memorandum to the metaldehyde Docket. If any comment significantly
affects the reregistration decision, EPA also will publish an amendment
to the RED in theFederal Register. In the absence of substantive
comments requiring changes, the metaldehyde RED will be implemented as
it is now presented.

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

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the Administrator
shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient
are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product-specific
data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products
or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''
    Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for
pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether
the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2)
or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 2, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-12896 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61517-61519]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24502]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0485; Product Identifier 2019-NM-064-AD; Amendment
39-19757; AD 2019-20-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of thrust reverser unit
(TRU) beams found with evidence of thermally caused material
degradation in the rearmost section of the TRU beam at certain latches.
This AD requires an inspection for heat damage of each left-hand and
right-hand TRU beam as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. Depending on
findings, this AD might also require inspections of the TRU beam
latches, the TRU beam clevises, and the thrust reverser outer fixed
structure rear area; corrective actions; and replacement of TRU beams.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 18, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0485.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0485; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0148R1, dated April 5, 2019
(``EASA AD 2018-0148R1'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-
342, and A330-343 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A330-243, A330-243F, A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 26, 2019 (84 FR 30052).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of TRU beams found with evidence of
thermally caused material degradation in the rearmost section of the
TRU beam at certain latches. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection
for heat damage of each left-hand and right-hand TRU beam. The NPRM
also proposed to require, depending on the findings, inspections of the
TRU beam latches, the TRU beam clevises, and the thrust reverser outer
fixed structure rear area; corrective actions; and replacement of TRU
beams.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address degradation of TRU beams,
which could lead to disconnection of the TRU from the engine, causing
possible damage to the engine adjacent structure and controls and
possible damage to the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Patrick
Imperatrice expressed support for the NPRM.

Request To Allow Certain Substitutions

    American Airlines identified several errors in the service
information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0148R1, and requested correction
of the errors through allowing certain substitutions. The commenter
noted that the proposed AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2018-
0148R1, which in turn references service information from Airbus, Rolls
Royce, and Safran. The commenter stated that the applicable service
information contains several errors when referring to part numbers,
documents, and the order in which certain steps are to be done. The
commenter added that Safran verified these errors. Specifically, the
commenter requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow the
following substitutions:
     The installation of NAS1149 series washers in lieu of
AN960 washers.
     The installation of NAS6303U4 bolts in lieu of NAS6303U04
bolts.
     The use of NSA5050-4C nuts in lieu of NAS5050-4C nuts.
     The reference to ``Airbus SRM 51-75'' in lieu of ``Rolls
Royce SRM 54-02-04'' for paint restoration.
     The reference to ``CMM 78-30-20 Figure 39 Graphic 78-30-
20-991-839-A01'' in lieu of ``CMM 78-30-20 Figure

38 Graphic 78-30-20-991-838-A01'' for replacement of damaged right-hand
thrust reverser latch covers and hardware.
     The allowance to de-energize the ground service network,
as specified in aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) 24-42-00, after
closing the fan cowl doors in lieu of de-energizing the ground service
network before closing the fan cowl doors.
    The FAA acknowledges the referenced errors and agrees with the
commenter's request. The FAA has added paragraphs (h)(3) through (8) to
this AD to include exceptions allowing the substitutions requested by
the commenter.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0148R1 describes procedures for a special detailed
inspection for heat damage of each left-hand and right-hand TRU beam,
detailed inspections of the TRU beam latches for bush migration and
cracks or deformation, detailed inspections of the TRU beam clevises
for cracks and deformation, ultrasonic inspections of the thrust
reverser outer fixed structure rear area for delamination, replacement
of TRU beams, and corrective actions. Corrective actions include
restoring paint, repairing delaminated areas, and measuring latch pin
hole fitting diameters near migrated bushes. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85           $4,335
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....              $0             $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The table only includes the costs for on-condition inspections. The
  FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the agency to
  provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions and
  replacement specified in this AD.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-20-04 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19757; Docket No. FAA-2019-0485;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-064-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A330-243, A330-243F,
A330-341, A330-342, and A330-343 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of thrust reverser unit (TRU)
beams found with evidence of thermally caused material degradation
in the rearmost section of the TRU beam at certain latches. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address degradation of TRU beams, which could
lead to disconnection of the TRU from the engine, causing possible
damage to the engine adjacent structure and controls and possible
damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0148R1, dated April 5, 2019 (``EASA AD 2018-0148R1'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0148R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2018-0148R1 refers to its effective date, or
July 27, 2018 (the effective date of EASA AD 2018-0148, dated July
13, 2018), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0148R1 does not
apply to this AD.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 specifies the installation of AN960 washers, this AD allows
the installation of NAS1149 series washers.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 specifies the installation of NAS6303U04 bolts, this AD
allows the installation of NAS6303U4 bolts.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 specifies the use of NAS5050-4C nuts, this AD allows the use
of NSA5050-4C nuts.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 refers to ``Rolls Royce SRM 54-02-04'' for paint restoration,
for this AD replace the phrase ``Rolls Royce SRM 54-02-04'' with
``Airbus SRM 51-75.''
    (7) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 refers to ``CMM 78-30-20 Figure 38 Graphic 78-30-20-991-838-
A01'' for replacement of damaged right-hand thrust reverser latch
covers and hardware, for this AD replace the phrase ``CMM 78-30-20
Figure 38 Graphic 78-30-20-991-838-A01'' with ``CMM 78-30-20 Figure
39 Graphic 78-30-20-991-839-A01.''
    (8) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 specifies to de-energize the ground service network, as
specified in aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) 24-42-00, before
closing the fan cowl doors, this AD allows de-energizing the ground
service network after closing the fan cowl doors.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0148R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2018-0148R1 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Vladimir Ulyanov,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0148R1,
dated April 5, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2018-0148R1, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2019-0485.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 27, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24502 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 205 (Thursday, October 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67291-67293]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22188]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0169; FRL-10013-16]

Sulfuric Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of sulfuric acid on hop vines when applied
as a desiccant in the production of hops. J.R. Simplot Company
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to an existing requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of sulfuric acid.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 22, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 21, 2020
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0169, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0169 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 21, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0169, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Standard

    In the Federal Register of May 8, 2020 (85 FR 27346) (FRL-1008-38),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP
9F8742) by J.R. Simplot Company, P.O. Box 27, Boise, ID 83707. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1019 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of sulfuric
acid in or on hop vines. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section

408(b)(2)(C), which requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    Available data indicate that sulfuric acid rapidly dissociates to
non-toxic hydrogen ions and sulfate ions in the human body and the
environment. For further information on sulfuric acid, see Mineral
Acids Interim Decision and supporting risk assessment in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0766.
    Due to the lack of toxicity associated with any residues remaining
in or on food, toxicological endpoints were not identified for dietary
assessment, and a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors was
not conducted. Based on reliable data that supports the lack of
threshold effects, EPA has not retained the additional tenfold
children's safety factor.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including
drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).
    Based on the rapid dissociation of sulfuric acid in the environment
to sulfate ion, which is not of toxicological concern, the Agency has
determined that a quantitative aggregate exposure and risk assessment
is not required for sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid produces sulfate salts
in the environment, many of which are designated by FDA as GRAS. So,
there is no dietary, dermal or inhalation exposures of concern when
used per label directions. Also, there are no conventional residential
uses for sulfuric acid as a desiccant/herbicide reducing the potential
for non-occupational exposure.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found sulfuric acid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and sulfuric acid does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
sulfuric acid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    Based on its assessment of sulfuric acid, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to
residues of sulfuric acid. Accordingly, EPA finds that an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for sulfuric acid when used as a
desiccant in the production of hops will be safe.

VII. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VIII. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of sulfuric
acid, when used as a desiccant in the production of hop vines.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.1019 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1019  Sulfuric acid; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    (a) Residues of sulfuric acid are exempted from the requirement of
a tolerance when used in accordance with good agricultural practice
when used as a herbicide in the production of garlic and onions, and as
a vine desiccant in the production of potatoes and hops.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-22188 Filed 10-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P