9652 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2003 / Notices North and South Ranges, Inyo, Kern and San Bernardino Counties, CA. Summary: EPA raised environmental concerns about potential impacts associated with past use of munitions containing depleted uranium ( DU), potential impacts associated with continued or renewed use of DU munitions under any of the fullyevaluated alternatives, and the Navy's environmental restoration efforts to date for DU contamination. EPA also raised concerns about potential air quality impacts associated with the project's implementation, including emissions of air toxics, which can be potentially reduced with mitigation.

Final EISs ERP No. F   FSA   A65172   00, Programmatic EIS   Conservation Reserve Program Implementation and Expansion, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 ( 2002 Farm Bill), in the United States. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. ERP No. F   NOA   K91011   00, 2003 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, Groundfish Acceptable Biological Catch and Optimum Yield Specifications and Management Measures, Implementation, WA, OR and CA. Summary: EPA expressed continuing environmental concerns regarding impacts on overfished bocaccio stocks, and the effectiveness of enforcement measures for the 2003 harvest. ERP No. F   NPS   K61156   00, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Long Term Management of Lake Mead and Mohave and Associated Shoreline and Development Area, Lake Management Plan, Clark County, NV and Mohave County, AZ. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. ERP No. F1   FAA   D51026   00, Potomac Consolidated Teminal ( PCT) Radar Approach Control Facility ( TRACON) Airspace Redesign in the Baltimore Washington Metropolitan Area. Newly Consolidated TRACON, Aircraft Performance Improvements and Emerging PCT Technologies, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV and DC. Summary: EPA has no objection to the proposed action since our previous issues have been addressed in the final EIS.

Dated: February 25, 2003. Joseph C. Montgomery, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [ FR Doc. 03   4780 Filed 2   27   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7456   2]

Notice of Extension of Due Date for Proposals for the National Environmental Information Exchange Network ( Network) Grant Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of extension of due date for proposals.

SUMMARY: The due date for proposals for the Network Grant Program has been extended to March 18, 2003. Proposals must be submitted by mail or courier to U. S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Information Collection, ATTN: Lyn Burger, EPA West, Mail Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 and electronically by email: neenprg@ epamail. epa. gov on or before March 18, 2003. Funding Vehicle Preference: The grant proposal should indicate whether the applicant prefers receiving grant funds as part of an existing Performance Partnership Grant ( PPG), or as a separate grant. If the grant recipient chooses to add funds to an existing PPG, the Network grant work plan commitments must also be included in the PPG work plan negotiated with EPA HQ and Regions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lyn Burger, U. S. EPA, Office of Information Collection, Mail Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; Phone ( 202) 566   1024; E mail at neengprg@ epamail. epa. gov. For additional information, please visit the Network Grant website at www. epa. gov/ neengprg.

Dated: February 21, 2003. Kimberly T. Nelson, Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer, Office of Environmental Information. [ FR Doc. 03   4771 Filed 2   27   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0072; FRL   7296   1]

Availability of Atrazine Interim Risk Management Decision Document AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) document for the triazine pesticide atrazine. This decision document has been developed as part of the public participation process that EPA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) are now using for involving the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA), and the reregistration of individual pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0072, must be received on or before April 29, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Nesci, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8059; fax number: ( 703) 308   8041; email address: nesci. kimberly@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the interim risk management decision document for atrazine, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. Since other entities 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. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0072. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 05 Feb 27, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEN1. SGM 28FEN1 9653 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2003 / Notices Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0072. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp   docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0072. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0072. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0072. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 05 Feb 27, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEN1. SGM 28FEN1 9654 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2003 / Notices CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has assessed the risks of atrazine and reached an Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) for this triazine pesticide. Provided that risk mitigation measures are adopted, atrazine fits into its own risk cup its individual, aggregate risks are within acceptable levels. A chemical used mainly to control weeds on corn, sorghum, and sugarcane, atrazine residues in food do not pose risk concerns. The Agency's drinking water, occupational, residential and ecological risk assessments for atrazine indicate risks of concern. Intermediate term ( seasonal) dietary risk from drinking water exceeds the Agency's level of concern (> 100% cPAD ( chronic population adjusted dose)) at the 99.9th exposure percentile for infants, children 1   6 years of age, and adults in 34 community water systems primarily in the Midwest. Further, there are some concerns for workers who mix, load, and apply atrazine to agricultural and turf sites and for homeowners who apply atrazine products to home lawns. In addition, there are risks of concern for adults and children exposed to atrazine treated lawns after applications. For ecological effects, the Agency has conducted a screening level assessment for terrestrial impacts and a refined exposure assessment for aquatic impacts of atrazine use. These assessments indicate that atrazine is likely to result in community and population level risk at 10 to 20 parts per billion. The ecological assessment does not address the potential for effects on amphibians endocrinology and reproductive and developmental responses. The Agency will consider amphibian risk after the Agency obtains further data and will address any risks identified in a revision to the IRED to be published by October 31, 2003. To mitigate risks of concern posed by the uses of atrazine, the Agency considered the mitigation proposal submitted by the technical registrants, as well as comments and mitigation ideas from other interested parties, and has decided on a number of label amendments to address the dietary ( drinking water), worker, and residential concerns. In addition, to further address drinking water concerns and to address ecological concerns, the Agency and the technical registrants have agreed to a performance standard for atrazine that must be met in community water systems, prohibition of use in watersheds if the standard is not met, and monitoring data requirements as described in a Memorandum of Agreement between the primary technical registrants of atrazine and the Agency. Results of the risk assessments, the necessary label amendments to mitigate those risks, and information on the Agreement between the Agency and the technical registrants are presented in the IRED. The interim risk management decision document for atrazine was made through the pilot public participation process, which increases transparency and maximizes stakeholder involvement in EPA's development of risk assessments and risk management decisions. The pilot public participation process was developed as part of the EPA USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee ( TRAC), which was established in April 1998, as a subcommittee under the auspices of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. A goal of the pilot public participation process is to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development of pesticide risk assessments and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998, to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation. EPA worked extensively with affected parties to reach the decisions presented in this interim risk management decision document, which conclude the pilot public participation process for atrazine. As part of the pilot public participation process, numerous opportunities for public comment were offered as this interim risk management decision document was being developed. The risk assessments for atrazine were released to the public through notices published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2001 ( 66 FR 10287) ( FRL   6765   3), and May 6, 2002 ( 67 FR 30379) ( FRL   6836   1). EPA's next step under FQPA is to complete a cumulative risk assessment and risk management decision for the triazine pesticides, which share a common mechanism of toxicity. This interim risk management decision document on atrazine cannot be considered final until this cumulative assessment is complete. When the cumulative risk assessment for the triazine pesticides has been completed, EPA will issue its final tolerance reassessment decision for atrazine and further risk mitigation measures may be needed.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The legal authority for this IRED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA 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 enduse products, and either reregistering VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 05 Feb 27, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEN1. SGM 28FEN1 9655 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2003 / Notices products or taking `` other appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: February 21, 2003. Betty Shackleford, Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   4778 Filed 2   27   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0028; FRL   7290   3]

EPTC; Receipt of Request For Amendments to Delete Uses AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6( f)( 1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request for amendment by Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. ( formerly Zeneca Ag Products) to delete uses in certain registrations for products containing SEthyl di propyl thiocarbamate or EPTC. In addition, Drexel Chemical Company has asked EPA to cancel or amend their registrations for end use products containing EPTC. Pursuant to section 6( f)( 1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), EPA is announcing the Agency's receipt of these requests. These requests for voluntary cancellation were submitted to EPA in March 2000 and February 2002. EPA also plans to issue a cancellation order for the deleted uses at the close of the comment period for this announcement. EPA will decide whether to approve the requests after consideration of public comment. DATES: Comments on the requested amendments to delete uses must be submitted to the address provided below by March 31, 2003. Withdrawal of request for deletion of use must be submitted in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before March 31, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demson Fuller, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8062; email address: fuller. demson@ epamail. epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, sell, distribute, or use EPTC products. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U. S. C. 804( 3). Since other entities may also 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. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0028. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 05 Feb 27, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEN1. SGM 28FEN1


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67114-67118]
[DOCID:fr18de09-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0276; FRL-8800-8]

Prosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
prosulfuron and its metabolites and degradates in or on cereal grain
commodities. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 18, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 16, 2010,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0276. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. 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 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 Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open 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: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To
access the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test
Methods & Guidelines'' on the left-side navigation menu.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2008-0276 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before February 16, 2010.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0276, 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
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47186) (FRL-8375-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a

pesticide petition (PP 5F4469) by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., PO
Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.481 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-
trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea, in or on field and popcorn
grain, fodder, and forage at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); cereal
grains group (except rice and wild rice), fodder at 0.01 ppm; forage at
0.10 ppm; grain at 0.01 ppm; hay at 0.20 ppm; straw at 0.02 ppm;
cattle, goat, hog, horse, sheep fat, kidney, liver, meat, and meat
byproducts at 0.05 ppm; and milk at 0.01 ppm. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the
registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that corn and livestock commodity tolerances proposed in the
petition are not required. EPA has also revised the cereal grain
commodity terms and the tolerance expression for prosulfuron. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(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.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA 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....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of prosulfuron and its metabolites and
degradates on grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,
except rice, fodder at 0.01 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and
straw, group 16, except rice, forage at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal,
forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except rice, hay at 0.20 ppm;
grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except rice, straw
at 0.02 ppm; and grain, cereal, group 15, except rice at 0.01 ppm.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies 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.
    Toxicology studies indicate that prosulfuron has minimal toxicity
under acute exposure conditions and that it is not a skin or eye
irritant or dermal sensitizer. In chronic and subchronic studies with
prosulfuron, some treatment-related effects were observed, most
commonly effects on body weight. Evidence of neurotoxicity was also
observed in gavage studies. Effects consistent with neurotoxicity
(primarily gait and sensorimotor effects) were observed in rabbits in
the developmental toxicity range-finding study and in rats in the acute
neurotoxicity screening study. However, neurotoxic effects were not
observed following oral exposure to prosulfuron, and there was no
evidence from the developmental and reproductive studies of increased
susceptibility to these effects in rat or rabbit fetuses or offspring.
    Previously, EPA classified prosulfuron as a Group D Chemical (``Not
Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity''), a classification
consistent with the cancer guidelines in effect at the time (1995).
This classification was based on the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in male or female mice at the limit dose and equivocal
evidence of carcinogenicity in female rats. In female rats, there was
suggestive evidence of a possible treatment-related increase in the
incidence of adenocarcinomas of the mammary glands at the mid dose but
not at the high dose. This lack of dose-response (i.e. the relatively
limited response in the high dose group and a more pronounced response
in the middle-dose group) along with the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in mice and the lack of evidence for in vivo or in
vitro mutagenicity lowered the concern for the carcinogenic potential
of prosulfuron. EPA has reviewed this evidence under the current 2005
guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment and concluded that
Prosulfuron should be classified as ``Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by prosulfuron as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Prosulfuron. Revised Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Establishment of Permanent
Tolerances for Uses in/on Cereal Grains (Crop Group 15), Except Rice'',
page 33 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0276.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).

    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for prosulfuron used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document titled ``Prosulfuron. Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Proposed Establishment of Permanent Tolerances for Uses in/on
Cereal Grains (Crop Group 15), Except Rice'', page 17 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0276.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to prosulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances. There are no other tolerances currently in effect for
prosulfuron. Temporary tolerances on cereal grains and livestock
commodities expired on December 31, 1999. EPA is establishing permanent
tolerances on cereal grain commodities in this action but has
determined that livestock tolerances are unnecessary, since there is no
expectation of finite residues in livestock commodities from
prosulfuron's use on cereal grains. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
prosulfuron in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues are
present in cereal grains at the tolerance level and that 100% of cereal
grains are treated with prosulfuron.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that residues
are present in cereal grains at the tolerance level and that 100% of
cereal grains are treated with prosulfuron.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA does not expect prosulfuron to pose a cancer risk.
Therefore, an exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is
unnecessary for this chemical.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for prosulfuron. Tolerance level residues and 100% CT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for prosulfuron in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of prosulfuron. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
prosulfuron for acute exposures are estimated to be 1.872 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.655 ppb for ground water. The
EDWCs for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to
be 0.583 ppb for surface water and 0.655 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 1.872 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.655 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Prosulfuron is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. 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 prosulfuron to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and prosulfuron does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
prosulfuron 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 http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for prosulfuron includes a developmental toxicity
study in the rat, two developmental toxicity studies and a range-
finding developmental study in the rabbit, and a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study in the rat. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility of fetuses or offspring in any of these
studies.
    There were no maternal or fetal effects observed at any dose in the
first of two rabbit developmental toxicity studies. In the second
rabbit study and in the rat developmental toxicity study, a dose-
related increase in small fetuses and skeletal effects was observed,
but only in the presence of maternal toxicity (decreased body weight
gain in the rat study; and increases in abortions, decreases in food
consumption and decreased mean body weight gain in the rabbit study).
    In the developmental range-finding study in rabbits, maternal
effects consistent with neurotoxicity (hypoactivity, muscle weakness
and

incoordination of limbs/ataxia) were observed at all doses tested.
Sciatic nerve degeneration and white matter degeneration of the spinal
cord were also observed at higher dose levels. There was no evidence of
neurotoxicity to fetuses or offspring observed in any of the
developmental or reproduction toxicity studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for prosulfuron is adequate to assess
prenatal and postnatal toxicity. In accordance with part 158 Toxicology
Data requirements, an immunotoxicity study (870.7800) is required for
prosulfuron. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has
examined the available prosulfuron toxicity data for evidence of
immunotoxic effects. No evidence of immunotoxicity was found. Due to
the lack of evidence of immunotoxicity for prosulfuron in available
studies, EPA does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity testing
will result in a NOAEL less than the chronic NOAEL of 5.3 milligrams/
kilograms (mg/kg) bodyweight/day (bw/day) already established for
prosulfuron, and an additional database uncertainty factor is not
needed to account for the lack of this study.
    ii. Although there was evidence of neurotoxicity following gavage
exposure to prosulfuron in the rat (ataxia, decreased motor activity,
decreased body temperature, impaired gait and righting reflex) and in
the pregnant rabbit (ataxia, hypoactivity, neuropathology), there is
low concern for these effects. The findings were observed only at high
doses (at or above 250 mg/kg/day) following gavage dosing and were not
observed following dietary exposure to levels up to 628 mg/kg/day. For
example, the acute neurotoxicity study in rats involved gavage dosing
and showed neurotoxic effects at 250 mg/kg/day but the subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats which did not involve gavage dosing did not
show neurotoxic effects at the highest dose tested (628/313 male/female
(M/F) mg/kg/day). The neurotoxicity findings in the pregnant rabbit
were observed at a dose causing death, abortions and systemic toxicity,
and the neuropathology did not show a dose-response. Furthermore, there
was no evidence for neurotoxicity in offspring in the developmental
studies or in the rat reproduction study, and increased prenatal and/or
postnatal susceptibility was not observed. Based on these
considerations, EPA has concluded that a developmental neurotoxicity
(DNT) study is not required for prosulfuron and an additional
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for potential
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that prosulfuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground water and surface water modeling
used to assess exposure to prosulfuron in drinking water. Prosulfuron
is not registered for residential uses. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by prosulfuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to prosulfuron will occupy less than 1% of the aPAD for the general
population and all population subgroups, including infants and
children's subgroups.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
prosulfuron from food and water will utilize less than 1% of the aPAD
for the general population and all population subgroups, including
infants and children's subgroups. There are no residential uses for
prosulfuron.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure take into account short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Prosulfuron
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term or intermediate-term aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from exposure to prosulfuron through food and
water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on a lack of
evidence for carcinogenicity in mice and rats following long-term
dietary administration, prosulfuron is not expected to pose a cancer
risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to prosulfuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    No CODEX maximum residue limits have been established for
prosulfuron.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has determined that the corn and livestock commodity tolerances
proposed in the petition are not required. Field corn and popcorn are
members of the Crop Group 15 (cereal grains); therefore, residues on
corn commodities will be covered by the cereal grains (group 15)
tolerances. Tolerances are not required for livestock commodities
because there is no expectation of finite residues in livestock
commodities from the use of prosulfuron on cereal grains. EPA has also
revised the cereal grain commodity terms to agree with the Agency's
Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary.
    Finally, EPA has revised the prosulfuron tolerance expression to
clarify the chemical moieties that are covered by the tolerances and
specify how compliance with the tolerances is to be measured. The
revised tolerance expression makes clear that the

tolerances cover residues of prosulfuron and its metabolites and
degradates, but that compliance with the tolerance levels will be
determined by measuring only prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-
triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea, in or
on the commodities.
    EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of prosulfuron
and its metabolites and degradates in or on grain, cereal, forage,
fodder, and straw, group 16, except rice, fodder at 0.01 ppm; grain,
cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except rice, forage at
0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except
rice, hay at 0.20 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group
16, except rice, straw at 0.02 ppm; and grain, cereal, group 15, except
rice at 0.01 ppm. Compliance with these tolerances will be determined
by measuring only prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-
[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea, in or on the
commodities.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance 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 final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 8, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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. Section 180.481 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.481  Prosulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide prosulfuron and its metabolites and degradates in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified in the table below is to be determined by measuring only
prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-
trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,                 0.01
 except rice, fodder.................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,                 0.10
 except rice, forage.................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,                 0.20
 except rice, hay....................................
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16,                 0.02
 except rice, straw..................................
Grain, cereal, group 15, except rice.................               0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registration. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. E9-30194 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11707-11711]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04452]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0421; FRL-9907-22-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska;
Anchorage Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan and State
Implementation Plan Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Alaska (the State) submitted two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to the Anchorage Transportation
Control Program, Anchorage Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan. On
September 20, 2011, the State submitted a SIP revision (2011 Submittal)
that updated Anchorage's CO motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in
the Anchorage CO maintenance area using the EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model. On April 22, 2013, the State
submitted a SIP revision (2013 Submittal) to satisfy the Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 175A(b) requirement for a second 10-year maintenance plan
for the Anchorage CO maintenance area in the form of a limited
maintenance plan (LMP). This LMP addresses maintenance of the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a second 10-year
period, beyond redesignation of the area to attainment, through 2024.
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve both the 2013
Submittal and portions of the 2011 Submittal that are not superseded by
the 2013 Submittal. The EPA is approving these SIP revisions because
the State has demonstrated that they are consistent with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 2, 2014, without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment by April 2, 2014. If the EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0421, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2013-0421. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

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

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

Table of Contents

I. What is the purpose of this action?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What changes to the Alaska SIP were submitted for the EPA's
approval?
IV. Evaluation of the Alaska Submittals
    A. 2011 Submittal
    B. 2013 Submittal
    C. Revisions to 18 AAC 50.030
V. Transportation and General Conformity
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the purpose of this action?

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve a CO LMP for the
Anchorage CO maintenance area for the second 10-year maintenance
period. The CO LMP, submitted by the State of Alaska to the EPA on
April 22, 2013, is designed to keep the Anchorage CO maintenance area
in attainment for the CO standard for a second 10-year period beyond
redesignation of this area to attainment, through 2024.
    The EPA is also taking direct final action to approve some
revisions to the CO maintenance plan that were submitted on September
20, 2011. The 2011 Submittal updates the approved CO maintenance plan
to reflect the use of the EPA's MOVES model. However, the Submittal
includes sections of the plan that have been superseded by the 2013
Submittal that the EPA is approving in this action. The EPA is
approving the most recently adopted and submitted sections of the plan.
Further action on the earlier adopted versions of these sections
included in the 2011 Submittal is not required because they are no
longer in effect and have been superseded by the 2013 Submittal. These
provisions are identified below.

II. What is the background for this action?

    Anchorage, Alaska, was first designated a nonattainment area for CO
and classified as moderate on January 27, 1978. The Municipality of
Anchorage prepared a plan to attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1987,
although Anchorage failed to achieve attainment by December 31, 1987.
The CAA was amended in 1990 and the EPA designated Anchorage as a
moderate nonattainment area for CO and required submission of a revised
air quality plan

to bring Anchorage into attainment by December 31, 1995 (56 FR 56712,
November 6, 1991). The EPA approved the plan in 1995, however, two
violations of the CO NAAQS in 1996 resulted in the EPA reclassifying
Anchorage to serious with an attainment date of December 31, 2000 (61
FR 33676, June 12, 1998). The State submitted a new attainment plan on
January 4, 2002, and on September 18, 2002, the EPA approved the
Anchorage CO attainment plan (67 FR 58711).
    On February 18, 2004, the State submitted a maintenance plan and a
redesignation request for the Anchorage CO nonattainment area. The EPA
approved the plan on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935). The maintenance plan
relied on control strategies needed to assure maintenance of the CO
NAAQS. The strategy focused on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program, a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program, expanded wintertime transit service and promotion of engine
pre-heaters.
    The State subsequently submitted two revisions to the Alaska SIP
relating to the I/M program in Anchorage: A March 29, 2002, SIP
revision that contained minor revisions to the statewide I/M program
(approved by the EPA on March 22, 2010, 75 FR 13436); and a September
29, 2010, SIP revision that discontinued the I/M program in Anchorage
as an active control measure in the SIP and shifted it to a contingency
measure (approved by the EPA on January 10, 2012, 77 FR 1414).

III. What changes to the Alaska SIP were submitted for the EPA's
approval?

    The 2011 Submittal updates the Federally-approved Anchorage CO
maintenance plan with emissions estimates calculated with the EPA's
MOVES motor vehicle emissions model. The updates include a reanalysis
of the emissions inventory and maintenance demonstration as well as
changes to the narrative. The 2011 Submittal replaces the Anchorage
Transportation Control Program in its entirety and revises four
sections of the appendices. The control strategies in the 2011
Submittal remain the same as in the most recent Federally-approved
maintenance plan for the Anchorage maintenance area that was approved
on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1414).
    The 2013 Submittal establishes a second 10-year CO maintenance plan
for the Anchorage area, as required by CAA section 175A(b). This plan
demonstrates that CO levels in the area will not exceed the CO NAAQS
standard during its effective period and does not institute additional
CO control measures. It revises three sections of the Anchorage
Transportation Control Program and three sections of the appendices.
The revised sections of the 2013 Submittal supersede those sections in
the 2011 Submittal.

IV. Evaluation of the Alaska Submittals

A. 2011 Submittal

    Alaska's 2011 Submittal updates the MVEB in the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan with the MOVES model. The MOVES model is the EPA's
state-of-the-art tool for estimating highway emissions. The model is
based on analyses of millions of emission test results and considerable
advances in the EPA's understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES
incorporates the latest emissions data, more sophisticated calculation
algorithms, increased user flexibility, new software design and
significant new capabilities relative to those reflected in the
previous emissions model, MOBILE6.2. The EPA announced the release of
MOVES2010 in March 2010 and explained that MOVES2010 should be used in
SIP development as expeditiously as possible outside of California (75
FR 9411, March 2, 2010). In addition, the notice started a two-year
grace period before MOVES2010 was required to be used in new regional
emissions analyses for transportation. The EPA extended that grace
period until March 2, 2013 (77 FR 11394, February 27, 2012).
    Following is the EPA's evaluation of the sections of the 2011
Submittal we are taking action on in this rulemaking.
1. The Revised Emission Inventories
    The 2011 Submittal revises only the on-road mobile source
inventories but not the point, non-road and area source inventories for
the 2007 base year and projections for the years 2009, 2011, 2012,
2013, 2015, 2019, and 2023. The control strategies in the 2011
Submittal remain the same as in the most recent maintenance plan for
the Anchorage maintenance area that was approved on January 10, 2012
(77 FR 1414). The State updated the area-wide inventory and the
Turnagain micro-inventory for the Anchorage maintenance area. The
Turnagain micro-inventory represents a 9 km\2\ area in a neighborhood
in west Anchorage that surrounds the Turnagain monitoring station. The
Turnagain monitor exhibits the highest CO concentrations of the current
monitoring network for the Anchorage maintenance area and has shown
approximately 20% higher values than the next highest site.
    In the 2007 Anchorage area-wide inventory, motor vehicles accounted
for 78.9% of the CO emissions on a typical 24-hour winter day. Motor
vehicle start emissions accounted for 53.4% of those emissions. The
total area-wide CO emissions are projected to increase by 6.7% by 2023,
from 159.3 tons per day (tpd) in 2007 to 169.9 tpd in 2023. In the 2007
Turnagain micro-inventory, motor vehicles accounted for about 84.4% of
the CO emissions on a typical 24-hour winter day with motor vehicle
start emissions accounting for about 58.9% of those emissions. In the
Turnagain micro-inventory area, total CO emissions are projected to
decrease by about 5% through 2023, from 10.2 tpd in 2007 to 9.71 tpd in
2023.
2. The Revised Maintenance Demonstration
    The State revised the maintenance demonstration in the Anchorage CO
plan to include the emissions estimates calculated with MOVES. The
methods used for the maintenance demonstration in the 2011 Submittal
are consistent with those used previously and most recently approved by
the EPA on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1414). In the 2011 Submittal, the
State used a probabilistic roll-forward approach to demonstrate
maintenance with the CO NAAQS through 2023.
    Based on the revised maintenance demonstration in the 2011
Submittal, the probability of maintaining the CO NAAQS was found to be
99% or greater for all years from 2008 through 2023. In addition, the
State performed a sensitivity analysis that assumed three times higher
rates of growth in vehicle travel than projected and a 2% per annum
growth in wood burning. The probability of compliance using the higher
rates was estimated to be greater than 98% through 2023.
    The EPA concludes that the emission inventories and revised
maintenance demonstration in the 2011 Submittal are consistent with EPA
guidance and the Anchorage CO maintenance plan continues to demonstrate
its purpose of maintaining the CO NAAQS through the year 2023.
Therefore, the EPA is approving the 2011 Submittal with the exception
of the following two sections in Volume II: Section III.B.4, Carbon
Monoxide Monitoring Program and Section III.B.10, Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budget, because these sections have been superseded by the
State's 2013 Submittal and no further action by the EPA on these
components of the submission is required.
    Although the EPA previously found the MVEB to be adequate for
conformity purposes (77 FR 8252, February 14, 2012), we are not
approving the MVEB in the 2011 Submittal because it has

been superseded by the 2013 Submittal. The EPA is also not approving 18
AAC 50 as discussed below in section IV.C.

B. 2013 Submittal

    In its 2013 Submittal, the State revises the previous Anchorage
Transportation Control Program (2011 Submittal) by adding a second ten-
year maintenance plan as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA. The
2013 Submittal also revises the transportation conformity and CO
monitoring program sections of the plan and certain appendices of the
plan. The current Anchorage Transportation Control Program is comprised
of both the 2011 and the 2013 Submittals. Following is the EPA's
evaluation of the sections of the 2011 and 2013 Submittals we are
acting on in this rulemaking which support our approval of the
Anchorage second 10-year maintenance plan. (See the table ``Anchorage
2011 and 2013 CO Maintenance Plan Submittals'' in the docket for a
complete list of sections in the Anchorage Transportation Control
Program that the EPA is approving in this action.)
    For the second 10-year maintenance plan, the State chose the LMP
Option as described in an October 6, 1995, EPA memorandum from Joseph
Paisie, the Group Leader of the Integrated Policy and Strategies Group,
titled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas.'' To qualify for the LMP Option, the second
highest CO value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters
(two years of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below
7.65 parts per million (ppm), which is 85 percent of the 8-hour CO
NAAQS. The EPA has determined that the LMP Option for CO is also
available to all states as part of the 175A(b) update to the
maintenance plans, regardless of the original nonattainment
classification, or lack thereof. Thus, the EPA observes that although
the Anchorage maintenance area was designated as a serious
nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS, redesignation to attainment status
in conjunction with meeting all requirements of the October 6, 1995,
memorandum, allows the State to be eligible to submit a LMP as the
update to its original maintenance plan per section 175A(b) of the CAA.
    The requirements for the LMP Option and the EPA's evaluation of how
each requirement has been met by the 2011 and 2013 Submittals are
summarized below.
1. Base Year Emission Inventory
    A maintenance plan must contain an attainment year emission
inventory to identify a level of emissions in the area that is
sufficient to attain the CO NAAQS. The Anchorage CO maintenance plan
contains an emission inventory for the Anchorage maintenance area for
the base year 2007. The emission inventory for the Anchorage
maintenance area is a list, by source category, of the amount of CO
directly emitted by area, point and mobile sources. Motor vehicle
emission estimates for the 2007 base year inventory have been updated
with the EPA MOVES vehicle emission model and were included in the 2011
Submittal which the EPA is approving in this action (see discussion
above). The methods used to determine the Anchorage CO emission
inventory are consistent with the EPA's most recent guidance on
developing emission inventories. Because violations of the CO NAAQS are
most likely to occur on winter weekdays, the inventory prepared is for
a typical winter day. The table below shows the estimated tons of CO
emitted per winter day by source category.

    2007 Anchorage Emission Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                  Main source category                   tons per winter
                                                               day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources..........................................              1.3
Motor Vehicles.........................................            125.6
Anchorage International Airport Operations.............             12.4
Wood Burning...........................................              6.2
Space Heating-natural gas..............................              3.8
Merrill Field Airport..................................              0.7
Miscellaneous..........................................              9.3
                                                        ----------------
  Total................................................            159.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstration of Maintenance
    The 8-hour CO NAAQS is attained when the second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration in a given year does not exceed a
concentration of 9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS
in Anchorage occurred in 1996 and monitored CO levels have been
steadily in decline ever since. The second highest 8-hour CO
concentration in 2012 for the Anchorage maintenance area was 5.5 ppm,
which is in attainment with the CO NAAQS.
    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for the LMP Option if the second
highest 8-hour CO concentration during the most recent 8 quarters has
been at or below 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the NAAQS). The EPA believes
that if an area begins its maintenance period at or below 85 percent of
the CO 8-hour NAAQS, the continued applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in
the SIP, and any Federal control measures in place, should all provide
adequate assurance of maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period.
With the LMP Option, there is no requirement to project CO emission
inventories over the second 10-year maintenance period. The second
highest 8-hour CO concentration for the Anchorage maintenance area
during the most recent 8 quarters (2011-2012) was 5.5 ppm, which is
below the LMP Option requirement of 7.65 ppm. Therefore, the EPA finds
that Alaska has demonstrated that the Anchorage maintenance area
qualifies for the LMP Option and has satisfied the maintenance
demonstration requirement.
3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the LMP must contain provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 58. The 2013 Submittal includes a commitment to continue to
operate an EPA-approved monitoring network in Anchorage. Alaska submits
an annual air monitoring network plan to the EPA for approval, and the
Alaska air monitoring network plan was most recently approved by the
EPA on October 25, 2012.
4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions that could be implemented if a maintenance area
fails to attain the NAAQS. In the 2013 Submittal, Alaska committed to
the same six contingency measures for the Anchorage maintenance area
that were included in the 2011 Submittal. These contingency measures
are summarized in the LMP as follows:
    (1) Increasing public awareness and education, transit, carpool and
vanpool promotion efforts;
    (2) curtailing or limiting the use of fireplaces and woodstoves and
other wood burning appliances when high CO is predicted;
    (3) promoting an increase in transit ridership among commuters by
offering reduced fares or free transit for employees of companies that
contribute to the subsidy;
    (4) reinstating the engine block heater installation subsidy;
    (5) reinstating the ethanol-blended gasoline requirement; and

    (6) reinstating the Inspection and Maintenance program.
    As a result of its review, the EPA finds that the 2011 and 2013
Submittals adequately demonstrate that the Anchorage CO maintenance
area will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS through 2024, and that
these submittals contain all the necessary elements to qualify the
Anchorage CO maintenance area for the LMP Option.

C. Revisions to 18 AAC 50.030

    Both the 2011 and 2013 Submittals included revisions to the
appendices to the Air Quality Control Program (Volume III, 18 AAC 50
Air Quality Control) by amending regulation 50.030 of title 18 of the
Alaska Administrative Code. The EPA is taking no action on 18 AAC
50.030, State Air Quality Control Plan, which adopts by reference
Volumes II and III of the State Air Quality Control Plan and other
documents (as a matter of State law) because the referenced documents
that form the basis for the 2011 and 2013 Submittals are being
individually approved in this action. The EPA takes action directly, as
appropriate, on the specific provisions in the State Air Quality
Control Plan that have been submitted by the State, so it is
unnecessary for the EPA to approve 18 AAC 50.030. The EPA is only
approving those provisions related to the State's CO maintenance and
limited maintenance plans that are specifically identified in the 2011
and 2013 Submittals and addressed in this action. The EPA is not
approving any regulatory provision of 18 AAC 50.

V. Transportation and General Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
The EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs
and projects that are funded under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
conform to SIPs. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation
activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result. Similarly, Federal actions
subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy
the ``budget test'' specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the
same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be
unlimited.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP Option
are not subject to the budget test, the areas remain subject to other
transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 93, subpart A.
Thus, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the
State must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. Transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element per 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. The MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. Conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. The latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. Projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. Project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    The EPA confers regularly with the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation System technical and policy committees, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, the Alaska Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities, the Federal Highway Administration
and the Federal Transit Administration to review the Transportation
Improvement Plan for the Anchorage maintenance area to determine if the
area is meeting the transportation conformity requirements under 40 CFR
Part 93, subpart A. The EPA finds that the Anchorage maintenance area
currently meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 93, subpart A.

VI. Final Action

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the revised
sections of the Anchorage Transportation Control Program (Volume II,
Section III.B) in the Alaska SIP Submittal of September 20, 2011, that
are not superseded by the Submittal of April 22, 2013.
    In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the EPA is
approving the CO LMP (Limited Maintenance Plan for 2014-2024, Volume
II, Section III.B.12 of the State Air Quality Control Plan, adopted
February 22, 2013) for the second 10-year period for the Anchorage
maintenance area in Alaska's SIP Submittal of April 22, 2013, because
the State's LMP adequately demonstrates that the Anchorage maintenance
area qualifies for the LMP Option and will maintain the CO NAAQS
through the second 10-year maintenance period, and is consistent with
EPA guidance.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 2, 2014. 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 13, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plans.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The EPA approves the following revised sections of the
Anchorage Transportation Control Program, Anchorage CO Maintenance Plan
(Volume II, Section III.B) of the Alaska SIP Submittal adopted July 13,
2011, and submitted on September 20, 2011: Planning Process (Section
III.B.1), Maintenance Area Boundary (Section III.B.2), Nature of the CO
Problem--Causes and Trends (Section III.B.3), Transportation Control
Strategies (Section III.B.5), Modeling and Projections (Section
III.B.6), Contingency Plan (Section III.B.7), Anchorage Emergency
Episode Plan (Section III.B.8), Assurance of Adequacy (Section III.B.9)
and Redesignation Request (Section III.B.11). The EPA also approves the
following revised sections of the Appendices (Volume III): Anchorage
Assembly Resolution No. 2011-133 (Appendix III.B.1), Anchorage 2007
Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventory and 2007-2023 Emission Projections
(Appendix III.B.3), Analysis of Probability of Complying with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Carbon Monoxide in Anchorage
between 2007 and 2023 (Appendix III.B.6) and Affidavit of Oral Hearing
(Appendix III.B.10).
    (iv) The EPA approves the following revised sections of the
Anchorage Transportation Control Program, Anchorage CO Limited
Maintenance Plan (Volume II, Section III.B), of the Alaska SIP
Submittal adopted February 22, 2013, and submitted on April 22, 2013:
Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Program (Section III.B.4) Air Quality
Conformity Procedures (Section III.B.10), Limited Maintenance Plan for
2014-2024 (Section III.B.12). In this action, the EPA also approves the
following revised sections of the Appendices (Volume III): Anchorage
Assembly Resolution No. 2013-20 (Appendix III.B.1) and Affidavit of
Oral Hearing (Appendix III.B.10).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04452 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P