[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10678-10683]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04099]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0093; FRL-9906-17]

N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone (CAS Reg. No.
2687-94-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in formulations
of pyraflufen-ethyl herbicide at a maximum concentration of 20% weight.
Wagner Regulatory Associates on behalf of Nichino America, Inc.
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 26, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 28, 2014, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0093, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0093 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 28, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your

objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2013-0093, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13295) (FRL-
9380-2), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (IN-10541) by
Nichino America, Inc. 4550 New Linden Hill Road, Suite 501, Wilmington,
DE 19808. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1130 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone (CAS Reg. No. 2687-94-7) when
used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in formulations of pyraflufen-
ethyl herbicide at a maximum concentration of 20% weight. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Wagner Regulatory
Associates, Inc. 7217 Lancaster Pike, Suite A, P.O. Box 640, Hockessin,
Delaware 19707, the petitioner, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the 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. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
    Based on the results of acute toxicity studies in rats, N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is classified as having low acute toxicity via the
oral and dermal routes of exposure. It is a dermal irritant and a
dermal sensitizer.
    In mammals, the primary target is the liver. In subchronic feeding
studies in rats and dogs, N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone generally caused
increases in both absolute and relative liver weights along with
reduction in body weight gain/food consumption and changes in
hematological and biochemical parameters. No chronic toxicity study is
available.
    In a developmental toxicity study in rats with N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility in
fetuses as toxic effects were observed only at the highest dose tested,
800 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), in which dams exhibited
ruffled fur, ventral recumbency, somnolence, apathy, dyspnea and
comatose state. Other adverse effects observed were a reduction in food
consumption and slight body weight loss during the first days of dosing
and reduced corrected body weight gain. Developmental effects such as
reduced body weight and delay in skeletal ossification were observed
only in the presence of maternal toxicity. No reproductive toxicity,
immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity data are available for N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone,
    There were three genotoxicity studies available in the database for
N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone. An Ames test, a mouse

lymphoma assay and a mouse micronucleus test all showed negative
results for genotoxicity of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.
    No carcinogenicity studies were available in the database for N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone. The Agency used a qualitative structure activity
relationship (SAR) database, DEREK11, to determine if there were
structural alerts for potential carcinogenicity for N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone. No structural alerts for carcinogenicity were identified
for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone. In the absence of any structural alerts
and lack of mutagenicity concerns, N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is not
expected to be carcinogenic.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). 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 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 N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone used for human risk assessment is given below:
    1. Acute dietary (all populations). There were no adverse effects
observed attributable to a single dose for the general population
(including infants and children) or females 13-49 years of age.
    2. Chronic dietary (all populations). The chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD) was established based on the NOAEL (30 mg/kg/day)
from a 90-day oral toxicity study in dogs. The adverse effects seen in
this study were several statistically significant changes in hematology
and clinical chemistry parameters and statistically significant dose-
related increases in both absolute and relative liver weights at the
LOAEL of 90 mg/kg/day. A Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety
factor/database uncertainty factor of 3X is utilized for dietary risk
assessment.
    3. Dermal, short-term (1-30 days). The level of concern (LOC) for
short-term dermal exposure is a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 300 between
estimated human exposure and the NOAEL (30 mg/kg/day) from the 90-day
oral toxicity study in dogs. An FQPA safety factor/database uncertainty
factor of 3X is utilized for dermal, short-term, assessment.
    4. Inhalation, short-term (1-30 days). The level of concern (LOC)
for short-term inhalation exposure is a MOE of 300 between estimated
human exposure and the NOAEL (30 mg/kg/day) from the 90-day oral
toxicity study in dogs. An FQPA safety factor/database uncertainty
factor of 3X for the short-term inhalation assessment.
    Quantification of cancer risk is not appropriate since there are no
concerns for cancer based on SAR analysis of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone, EPA considered exposure under
the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA
assessed dietary exposures from N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone in food as
follows:
    In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment using the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model/Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-
FCID)\TM\, Version 3.16, EPA used food consumption information from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What we eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This
dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in
food, no residue data were submitted for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone. In
the absence of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach
which uses surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure
estimates for the subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure
estimates are based on the highest tolerance for a given commodity from
a list of high-use insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete
description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient
risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum
entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic
Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk
Assessments for the Inerts.'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0738.
    In the case of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone, EPA made specific
adjustments to the dietary exposure assessment to account for the use
limitations of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone as an inert ingredient in
cotton defoliant formulations containing thidiazuron and diuron as
active ingredients as well as the proposed use as an inert ingredient
in formulations of pyraflufen ethyl herbicide at a maximum
concentration of 20% weight.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100
parts per billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk
assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered
into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    The proposed use of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is as an inert
ingredient in pyraflufen ethyl formulations which have uses resulting
in potential residential exposures. A screening level residential
exposure and risk assessment was conducted based on the use pattern and
application rates of pyraflufen ethyl products.
    EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
All residential exposures are considered short-term in duration. The
residential handler assessment included short-term exposures via the
dermal and inhalation routes from treating golf courses, ornamental
turf lawns, road sides, parks and sports fields. In terms of post-
application exposure, there is the potential for dermal post-
application exposure for individuals as result of being in an
environment that has been previously treated with N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone. Short-term dermal exposures were assessed for adults,

children 1-2 and adult/child golfer. The scenarios used in the
aggregate assessment were those that resulted in the highest exposures.
    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 N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore,
EPA has assumed that N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone 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 Web site 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 Safety
Factor (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. No evidence of increased
susceptibility was seen in the developmental toxicity study on N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone. The maternal and developmental toxicity NOAEL was
200 mg/kg bw/day based on reduced body weight gain in dams and mean
fetal body weight and delay in skeletal ossification at the LOAEL of
800 mg/kg bw/day. No reproductive toxicity study is available N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.
    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 3X for all scenarios. That decision is based on
the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone consists of
90-day oral toxicity studies in rats and dogs, several mutagenicity
studies and a developmental toxicity study. While there are no
reproductive, neurotoxicity and chronic toxicity studies for N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone, there is no evidence of effects on reproductive
parameters or of any effects suggestive of neurotoxicity from the
available subchronic studies. Additionally, the most sensitive endpoint
selected seen in the 90-day dog oral toxicity study is based on
hematological and clinical chemistry parameters; increases in both
absolute and relative liver weights; and reduction in body weight gain/
food consumption--effects which are not expected to be progressive and
for which the resultant exposure assessment is likely to be protective
of chronic effects and characterize toxicity potential of N-(n-octyl)-
2-pyrrolidone. Although additional data are unlikely to indicate more
sensitive effects, EPA has retained a FQPA factor of 3X as a database
uncertainty factor. No inhalation toxicity studies were available in
the database; however, the only potential inhalation exposure to N-(n-
octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is to pesticide applicators, and, even assuming
that such exposure has some relevance to decisions on the FQPA safety
factor, the inhalation exposure to N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is
negligible in comparison to exposure under other pathways. In these
circumstances, neither retention or removal of the FQPA safety factor
would have a meaningful impact on assessment of risk from inhalation
exposure.
    ii. No evidence of immunotoxicity was observed in the available
database. Slight change in the clinical pathological parameters
(decreases in albumin/globulin ratio and globulin levels) were not
considered as an indication of an immunotoxic response since no effects
on blood lymphocytes and no adverse findings in the spleen and thymus.
Therefore, an immunotoxicity study is not required.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. As described earlier, EPA used worst case assumptions for
the dietary food exposure assessment. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess residential post
application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of
children 1-2. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone from food and water will utilize 59.37% of
the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. The chronic dietary exposure estimates for the total
U.S. population was 14.31%.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). N-(n-octyl)-
2-pyrrolidone is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,122 for adults
and 291 for children 1-2. EPA's level of concern for N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrrolidone is a MOE of 300 or below, however these MOEs are not of
concern based on the highly conservative assumptions made regarding
residential and dietary exposures to N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term residential aggregate
exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Pyraflufen ethyl is not currently registered for uses
that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure so an
intermediate term risk assessment for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone was not
performed. There are also no intermediate-term adverse effects
identified and therefore N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is not expected to
pose an intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. N-(n-octyl)-2-
pyrolidone is not expected to be carcinogenic.
    6. 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 N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of N-
(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone in or on any food commodities. EPA is
establishing a limitation on the amount of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone
that may be used in pesticide formulations.
    The limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration
process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide for
sale or distribution containing pyraflufen ethyl as an active
ingredient with concentrations of N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone exceeding
20% by weight of the pesticide formulation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nation Food
and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.1130 for N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone (CAS
Reg. No. 2687-94-7) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in
formulations of pyraflufen-ethyl herbicide at a maximum concentration
of 20% by weight.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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 FFDCA section 408(d), 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this 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) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 18, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    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. Revise Sec.  180.1130 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1130  N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone and N-(n-dodecyl)-2-
pyrrolidone; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

    (a) N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone and N-(n-dodecyl)-2-pyrrolidone are
exempt

from the requirement of a tolerance when used as solvents in cotton
defoliant formulations containing thidiazuron and diuron as active
ingredients.
    (b) N-(n-octyl)-2-pyrrolidone is exempt from the requirement of a
tolerance when used as a solvent in formulations containing pyraflufen-
ethyl as an active ingredient at a concentration not to exceed 20% by
weight.

[FR Doc. 2014-04099 Filed 2-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13174-13175]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4404-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Amendment No. 4 to
Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (FEMA-4404-DR), dated
October 26, 2018, and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued January 31, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 31, 2020, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) resulting from Super Typhoon Yutu
during the period of October 24 to October 26, 2018, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing
arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act'').
    Therefore, I amend my declarations of October 26, 2018 and
February 25, 2019, to authorize Federal funds for hazard mitigation
measures associated with sections 404 and 406 of the Stafford Act at
100 percent of total eligible costs with the following conditions:
    1. CNMI must maintain the 2018 International Building Code
through the closeout of the disaster; and
    2. CNMI must prioritize mitigation projects to improve
resiliency for critical infrastructure approved by the FEMA Region
IX Regional Administrator.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-04588 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8813-8820]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04389]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0621; FRL-9990-40-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Nonattainment Plan for the Miami SO2 Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving an
Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) revision for attaining the 2010
1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') for the Miami, Arizona
SO2 nonattainment area (NAA). This SIP revision (hereinafter
called the ``Miami SO2 Plan'' or ``Plan'') includes
Arizona's attainment demonstration and other elements required under
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''). In addition to an attainment
demonstration, the Plan addresses the requirements for meeting
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably
available control measures and reasonably available control technology,
base-year and projected emission inventories, enforceable emissions
limitations and control measures, and contingency measures. The EPA
concludes that the Plan provides for attainment of the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS in the Miami SO2 NAA by the
attainment date of October 4, 2018, and meets the other applicable
requirements under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0621. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever, ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and Response to Comments
III. The EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) (hereinafter called
``the 2010 SO2 NAAQS'' or ``the SO2 NAAQS'').
This standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the
3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.\1\ On August 5, 2013, the
EPA designated 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including the Miami SO2 NAA within
Arizona.\2\ These area designations became effective on October 4,
2013. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIP revisions for
areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to the
EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., in
this case by no later than April 4, 2015. Under CAA section 192, these
SIP submissions are required to include measures that will bring the
nonattainment area into attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years from the effective date of
designation. The attainment date for the Miami SO2 NAA was
October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b).
    \2\ 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonattainment plans for SO2 must meet sections 110, 172,
191 and 192 of the CAA. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment
SIP submissions are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific
procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at
subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990
Amendments to the CAA, the EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIP
revisions in the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble'').\3\
Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIP
submissions and fundamental principles for SIP control strategies.\4\
On April 23, 2014, the EPA issued guidance for meeting the statutory
requirements in SO2 SIP submissions in a document entitled,
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (``2014 SO2 Guidance'').\5\ In the 2014
SO2 Guidance, the EPA described the statutory requirements
for a complete nonattainment plan, which include: An accurate emissions
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within
the NAA; an attainment demonstration; demonstration of reasonable
further progress (RFP); implementation of reasonably available control
measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology
(RACT)); new source review; enforceable emissions limitations and
control measures; conformity; and adequate contingency measures for the
affected area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    \4\ Id. at 13545-49, 13567-68.
    \5\ Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions, April 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the EPA to fully approve a SIP revision as meeting the
requirements of CAA sections 110, 172, and 191-192 and the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the plan for the affected area needs to
demonstrate that each of the aforementioned requirements has been met.
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA may not approve a plan that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment
and RFP, or any other applicable requirement. Under CAA section 193, no
requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in
any area that is a NAA for any air pollutant may be modified in any
manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of
such air pollutant.
    The EPA published a notice on March 18, 2016, finding that Arizona
and other states had failed to submit the required SO2
nonattainment plans for the Miami SO2 NAA and several other
areas by the submittal deadline.\6\ This finding, which became
effective on April 18, 2016, initiated a deadline under CAA section
179(a) for the potential imposition of new source review offset and
highway funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the
finding triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) within two years of the effective date of the
finding unless the State has submitted, and the EPA has approved, the
nonattainment plan as meeting applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 81 FR 14736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the EPA's finding, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted the Miami SO2 Plan on
March 9, 2017, and submitted associated final rules on April 6,
2017.\7\ The EPA issued letters dated July 17, 2017, and September 26,
2017, finding the submittals complete and halting the sanctions clock
under CAA section 179(a).\8\ Today's final SIP approval terminates the
EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letters dated March 8, 2017, and April 6, 2017, from Tim
Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. Although the cover
letter for the Miami SO2 Plan was dated March 8, 2017,
the Plan was transmitted to the EPA on March 9, 2017.
    \8\ Letters dated July 17, 2017, and September 26, 2017, from
Elizabeth Adams, Acting Air Division Director, EPA Region IX, to Tim
Franquist, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and Response to Comments

    The EPA proposed to approve the Miami SO2 Plan on June
15, 2018.\9\ As part of this action, we also proposed to approve the
use of AERMOD v14134 and BLP (``BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach'') as an
alternative model to represent emissions from the roofline of the Miami
Smelter (``smelter'').\10\ The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day
public comment period. During this period, we received eight comment
letters. Six of these comment letters raised issues that are outside of
the scope of this rulemaking, including air quality in China, India,
and other areas of the United States, wind power, and relations between
the United States and Russia. We are not required to respond to these
comments and are not doing so here. Two comment letters, one from the
Arizona Mining Association (AMA) and one from the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA), the Sierra Club (SC), and Arizona
Mining Reform Coalition (AMRC) (collectively, ``the Non-Governmental
Organizations'' or ``NGOs'') raised issues germane to this
action.11 12 The EPA's summary of

germane comments and responses are provided below. All comments
received on the proposal are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 83 FR 27938, June 15, 2018.
    \10\ Id. at 27942.
    \11\ Letter dated July 16, 2018, from Steve Trussell, Executive
Director, Arizona Mining Association, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \12\ Letter dated July 16, 2018, from Kevin Dahl, NPCA, Sandy
Bahr, SC, and Roger Featherstone, AMRC, to Krishna Viswanathan, Air
Division, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments From the AMA

    Comment: The AMA expressed support for our proposed approval of the
Miami SO2 SIP. In addition, the commenter specifically
requested clarification of the following statement from our proposal:

    The EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer-term emission
limits can allow short periods with emissions above the critical
emissions value, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions
conducive to high SO2 concentrations, could in turn
create the possibility of a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when
an exceedance would not have occurred if emissions were continuously
controlled at the level corresponding to the critical emission
value.

    The AMA requested that the EPA ``revise this discussion to make it
clear that the evaluation of the longer-term limit is looking at
whether additional hourly exceedances of the numeric portion of the
NAAQS will occur rather than NAAQS exceedances.''
    Response: We note AMA's support for our proposed approval. With
respect to the commenter's request for clarification, the commenter
appears to be confusing the term ``NAAQS exceedance'' with ``NAAQS
violation.'' The hourly exceedance of the level of a NAAQS is the same
as a NAAQS exceedance as used in our proposal but is different from a
NAAQS violation. As explained in our proposal:

    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring
site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75
ppb. In a year with 365 days of valid monitoring data, the 99th
percentile would be the fourth highest daily maximum 1-hour value. .
. Because the standard has this form, a single hourly exceedance
does not create a violation of the standard.\13\

    \13\ 83 FR 27940, June 15, 2018 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To restate, when we use the term ``NAAQS exceedance'' (both in our
proposal and in this document), we refer to an hourly exceedance of the
75 ppb level, rather than to a NAAQS violation, which would occur only
when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum
1-hour average concentrations is greater than 75 ppb.

B. Comments From the NGOs

    Comment: The NGOs noted that Arizona was subject to a March 18,
2016 ``Finding of Failure to Submit,'' and the EPA was therefore
obligated to approve the SIP or promulgate a FIP if the SIP was not
approved by April 18, 2018. They asserted that the SIP was not approved
nor was a FIP in place by the deadline.
    Response: We acknowledge that the EPA did not approve a SIP
revision or promulgate a FIP for the Miami SO2 NAA by April
18, 2018, as required under CAA 110(c)(1)(A). However, with this final
action to approve the Miami SO2 Plan, we are discharging our
statutory obligation under CAA section 110(k)(2) to act on the SIP, and
such approval terminates our FIP obligation under section 110(c)(1)(A)
for the Miami SO2 NAA.
    Comment: The NGOs stated that the Miami, Arizona area had a design
value of 105 ppb when designated nonattainment; whereas the 2014-2016
design value was 200 ppb, and the 2015-2017 preliminary design value
was 221 ppb. The commenters asserted that, because attainment is
determined by averaging over three years, the area will remain in
nonattainment on the October 4, 2018 attainment deadline even if
readings were 0.0 ppb from this point forward. On this basis they
concluded that, even though the control measures may be operational by
October 4, 2018, the State has already failed to demonstrate attainment
by the statutory deadline.
    Response: We disagree with this comment. We note that, contrary to
the commenters' suggestion, the CAA does not require states with
SO2 nonattainment areas to factually ``demonstrate
attainment by the statutory deadline'' in the SIPs they submit
containing the control measures that will achieve attainment. Rather,
sections 172 and 192 of the CAA require states to submit SIP revisions
that ``provide for attainment'' of the SO2 NAAQS by the
attainment date. In our proposal, we described our interpretation of
``provide for attainment'' and the rationale for finding that the Miami
SO2 plan submitted by the State of Arizona does provide for
attainment.\14\ In particular, Arizona's submittal provides modeling-
based evidence that establishes that the control measures required on
the single source of emissions in the area are sufficient to yield air
quality that attains the NAAQS by the attainment deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 83 FR 27947, June 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The available monitoring data should not be interpreted as
indicating that Arizona's SIP has failed to provide for timely
attainment. The monitoring data cited by the commenter were collected
before the full implementation of the measures in the Miami
SO2 plan, which occurred in 2018.\15\ Therefore, these data
are indicative of whether air quality met the standard prior to full
implementation of the measures reflected in the modeling demonstration,
but these data are not a reliable indicator of whether air quality,
after implementation of all modeled relevant control measures, would be
expected to meet the standard at the attainment deadline. In other
words, these data are not indicative of the adequacy of the plan and
its modeling demonstration to provide for NAAQS attainment. Instead, as
the EPA explained in our 2014 SO2 Guidance and in numerous
proposed and final SIP notices implementing the SO2 NAAQS, a
key element of an approvable SIP is the required modeling demonstration
showing that the remedial control measures and strategy are adequate to
bring a previously or currently violating area into attainment. Given
the form of the 2010 NAAQS as the 3-year average of the 99th percentile
of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO2
concentrations, it is often possible that the three-year period of
monitored data will not reflect the actual air quality levels resulting
from implementation of the newer remedial control measures implemented
within that period. In such cases, as it is here, the more complete and
representative analysis for informing action on a submitted SIP should
focus on the results of newly implemented control measures required
under the plan, rather than historical concentrations that do not
reflect the results of the plan's required control measures. The former
analysis explicitly addresses whether air quality will be attaining (as
required) under the state's submitted plan, whereas the latter analysis
may have little to no bearing on what will happen as a result of the
plan. Therefore, in the context of reviewing the adequacy of those
newer control measures to provide for newly attaining air quality under
sections 172 and 192, we conclude that it is reasonable to focus on the
modeling results that specifically account for those control measures
and the resulting reductions

in SO2 emissions, rather than on monitored data that, in
this case, do not represent air quality levels resulting from full
implementation of the control measures in the Plan. In the Miami
SO2 Plan, Arizona's modeling shows that implementation of
the measures included in the Plan result in air quality that attains
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On December 19, 2017, FMMI notified the EPA and ADEQ that
it had completed construction of the SO2 capture and
control system upgrades and had initiated associated commissioning
activities. Letter from Byron Belew, FMMI, to Alexis Strauss, EPA,
and Timothy Franquist, ADEQ (December 19, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has failed to
attain is a separate action from the review of an attainment
demonstration SIP. The EPA's SIP review occurs under CAA sections
110(k), 172(c) and 192(a), while a determination of whether an
SO2 NAA has failed to attain is governed by CAA section
179(c)(1). Under section 110(k)(3), the EPA is required to approve a
SIP submission that meets all applicable requirements of the CAA. For
the reasons described in our proposal and elsewhere in this notice, we
have concluded that the Miami SO2 Plan meets all such
requirements, including the requirement in 172(c) and 192(a) to provide
for attainment by the attainment date. This is the determination that
is the subject of today's final SIP approval action.
    Separately, in a different action under section 179(c)(1) that is
beyond the scope of today's final SIP approval action, the EPA must
determine within six months of the attainment date whether an area has
attained the NAAQS based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date. Accordingly, the EPA will in a separate action, analyze the
pertinent information and determine whether the Miami SO2
NAA attained the NAAQS by the attainment date in accordance with
section 179(c)(1).
    In response to the part of the comment related to change in ambient
values, we note that the 2009-2011 design value used to designate the
NAA was based on SO2 data from the Miami Ridgeline monitor,
which was the only SO2 monitor in the NAA at that time. The
2015-2017 design value cited by the commenter was based on data from
the Miami Jones Ranch Monitor, which was installed in 2013. Because of
safety and infrastructure concerns, the Ridgeline monitor ceased
operation on September 26, 2017, following EPA approval of the site's
closure.\16\ As shown in Table 1, during the years that both the
Ridgeline and Jones Ranch monitors had valid design values (2015 and
2016), the design values for the Jones Ranch monitor were more than 50
ppb higher than the design values for the Miami Ridgeline monitor. The
change in design value noted by the commenters reflects the more recent
design value information provided by the Miami Jones Ranch monitor and
appears to be more the result of monitoring at a different location
rather than a significant worsening of air quality as implied by the
commenter. Again, however, the EPA is not taking any final action today
under CAA section 179(c) to determine whether the Miami area factually
attained the NAAQS by the attainment date, and our discussion of the
monitoring data from the Ridgeline and the Jones ranch monitors
presented here is for informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Letter dated September 19, 2017, from Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division EPA Region IX, to Timothy Franquist,
Director, Air Quality, ADEQ.

                                   Table 1--2010 1-hr SO2 NAAQS Design Values for Monitors in the Miami SO2 NAA (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Site name                        AQS ID          2011         2012         2013         2014         2015         2016         2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridgeline \1\................................     04-007-0009          111          107          105          122          145          146          N/A
Jones Ranch \2\..............................     04-007-0011          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          199          200          221
Townsite \3\.................................     04-007-0012          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          196          194          159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = not available.
\1\ The Ridgeline monitor ceased operation on September 26, 2017, due to safety and infrastructure concerns.
\2\ The Jones Ranch monitor became operational on February 1, 2013.
\3\ The Townsite monitor site became operational on February 1, 2013.

    Comment: The commenters noted that the EPA stated that it agreed
with the State's placement of modeling receptors, which relied on an
ambient air boundary consisting of the facility's physical fence line
as well as several boundary segments with no fence that the State
inspected and concluded steep topography precludes public access.
However, the commenters asserted that ``there is no EPA regulation or
written policy stating that steep topography is not ambient air.
Impacts in these areas should not be ignored in the modeling
simulations, and thus, the State has not demonstrated that the proposed
emission limit of 142.45 lb/hr provides for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS.''
    Response: Ambient air is defined as ``that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access.'' \17\ The 2014 SO2 Guidance, Appendix A, Section
5.2 states ``[t]he model receptor grid is unique to the particular
situation and depends on the size of the modeling domain, the number of
modeled sources, and complexity of the terrain. Receptors should be
placed in areas that are considered ambient air (i.e., where the public
generally has access) relative to a particular facility. . . .'' The
EPA policy on excluding areas from ambient air has been stated in a
series of letters and memoranda. In a 1980 letter from Administrator
Douglas Costle to Senator Jennings Randolph,\18\ the EPA stated its
policy that the exclusion from ambient air is available only for the
atmosphere over land owned or controlled by the source and to which
public access is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers, based
on a case-by-case review of individual situations to ensure that the
public is adequately protected. This represents the EPA's current
policy with regard to ambient air. As part of a demonstration that an
exclusion is appropriate, a source should take steps to preclude the
general public from accessing the property by relying on some type of
physical barrier, such as a fence, wall, or a natural obstruction.\19\
As a result, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that the EPA
lacks a written policy that allows for steep topography to preclude
public access to facility property. As described above, a natural
obstruction, such as steep topography, may be considered to be part of
an ambient air boundary, consistent with the regulatory definition of
ambient air, if it is effective in

precluding the general public from accessing the property and can be a
basis for excluding such area for receptor placement in the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 CFR 50.1(e).
    \18\ Letter dated December 19, 1980, from Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator, EPA to Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman,
Environment and Public Works Committee.
    \19\ Memorandum dated June 22, 2007, from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, EPA to
Regional Air Division Directors, ``Interpretation of `Ambient Air'
In Situations Involving Leased Land Under the Regulations for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.'' As indicated in the
attachment to this EPA memo at footnote 1, ``preclude'' does not
necessarily imply that public access is absolutely impossible, but
rather that the likelihood of such access is small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA is currently evaluating this ambient air
policy to consider whether access to property by the general public may
be effectively precluded or deterred, consistent with the existing
regulatory definition of ambient air, by means other than a fence or
other physical barriers.\20\ Such a revision to our policy would not
alter our finding that Arizona properly excluded receptors in areas
owned or controlled by the source where steep topography precludes
public access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA Draft Guidance dated November 2018, ``Revised Policy on
Exclusions from `Ambient Air.' '' https://www.epa.gov/nsr/forms/draft-guidance-revised-policy-exclusions-ambient-air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs commented that according to the spreadsheet from
the docket \21\ Freeport-McMoRan Miami Incorporated's (FMMI's) existing
permit requires individual limits, on a pound per hour (lb/hr) basis,
on the various SO 2 emitting processes. They asserted that
our proposed action does not include a discussion as to why it is
appropriate to now switch to a single facility-wide limit with a longer
term (i.e., 30-day averaging basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See C.4 2015-07-13 FMMI Emissions Inventory--2015-07-13--
Past Actuals Using Sulfur Balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: First, we disagree with the commenter's characterization
of ``switching'' from individual limits to a facility-wide limit, as it
implies that these existing limits will either be replaced or cease to
be applicable following the approval of the Miami SO2 Plan.
The permit limits listed in the spreadsheet cited by the commenter are
found in Attachment C of FMMI's title V permit.\22\ The limits are
820.00 lb/hr for the Acid Plant Tail Gas Stack, 312.00 lb/hr for the
Vent Fume Stack, and 1288 lb/hr for all fugitives.\23\ These existing
limits were established under separate legal authority to meet separate
regulatory requirements and will not be altered by the addition of the
142.45 lb/hr limit (30-day rolling average) that applies to the entire
facility under Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 2,
Article 13, Section R18-2-C1302 (``Rule C1302'').\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The spreadsheet cited by the commenter (i.e., ``C.4 2015-
07-13 FMMI--Emissions Inventory--2015-07-13--Past Actuals Using
Sulfur Balance'') refers to Title V Permit 53592, which was issued
on November 26, 2012, and expired on November 25, 2017. FMMI's
current Title V Permit 66039, which was issued on December 20, 2019,
includes the same emissions limits in Attachment C as Title V Permit
53592.
    \23\ Title Permit 66039, Attachment C.
    \24\ The EPA approved Rule C1302 into the Arizona SIP at 83 FR
56736 (November 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we note that these existing individual limits were not in
the SIP and were not intended to provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
The appropriateness of the facility-wide, 30-day rolling emission limit
for attainment of the NAAQS must be evaluated based upon the legal
requirements and guidance associated with implementation of the 1-hr
SO2 NAAQS. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, our
proposal did explain why it is appropriate to use both a facility-wide
limit and a longer-term limit in this case.\25\ As explained in the
proposal, the State provided an analysis to show that due to the batch
nature of the smelting process at the Miami Smelter, the emissions from
the various units (``sources'') at the facility are independent of one
another and therefore do not peak at the same time. The collection of
future maximum potential SO2 emission rates for each source
represents a conservative estimate of the worst-case emission
distribution at the smelter. Additionally, ADEQ submitted an analysis
that demonstrates that variations in the location of peak emissions
among sources will not affect attainment, and a facility-wide emissions
limit is sufficiently protective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 83 FR 27938, June 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenters asserted that the adjustment factor used to
develop the emission limit for the Miami Smelter (0.37) indicates that
its operation is much more variable than are emissions at electric
generating units (EGUs) and that the EPA's 2014 SO2 Guidance
was developed based on empirical evidence to assess the variability of
the operation of EGUs, not sulfuric acid plants. They argued that this
greater variability means that there is much higher probability that
any given hour is above the critical emission value (CEV) for this
sulfuric acid plant relative to the EGUs cited in the 2014
SO2 Guidance. They asserted that there was no discussion of
the estimated percentage of time that the hourly emissions are expected
to be above the CEV and that the EPA or the State, at a minimum, should
provide some discussion on expected emissions and assess the
variability in terms of sulfuric acid plants rather than EGUs.
    Response: We agree that emissions at the Miami Smelter are more
variable than for EGUs. The adjustment factor for the Miami Smelter was
0.37 compared to the national average adjustment factors (i.e., 0.63-
0.79) estimated for EGUs and listed in Table 1 of Appendix D of the
2014 SO2 Guidance. The approach outlined in the 2014
SO2 Guidance accounts for whatever degree of variability a
source has, because the adjustment factor is designed to reflect the
source's own emission distribution and variability. The higher degree
of adjustment for the Miami Smelter compared to the EGUs means that the
longer-term emission limit for the smelter is lowered further to ensure
that hourly emissions exceeding the CEV are a rare occurrence. Indeed,
the protocol given in the 2014 SO2 Guidance is designed to
provide for long-term average emission levels above the long-term
average limit to be as rare as 1-hour emission levels above the CEV,
which for the Miami Smelter necessitates more adjustment than is
necessary for most EGUs. Therefore, we disagree with the commenters
that this increased variability means there is a higher probability
that any given hour is above the CEV compared to the sources envisioned
by the 2014 SO2 Guidance. As described in our proposal, the
State used hourly SO2 data collected using continuous
emission monitors from May 2013 to October 2014, adjusted to account
for Miami Smelter's upgrades and increased production capacity, as a
representative emission distribution for the smelter's future
configuration.\26\ Appendix C to the Miami SO2 Plan,
''Modeling Technical Support Document for the Miami Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Nonattainment Area'' (``Modeling TSD''), Table 8-7
specifies this representative emission distribution includes 60 hours
above the CEV, which amounts to 0.5 percent of operating hours. The
EPA's 2014 SO2 Guidance states that ``if above the critical
emission value are a rare occurrence at a source, these periods would
be unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, insofar as
they would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times when the
meteorology is conducive for high ambient concentrations of
SO2.'' \27\ We conclude that the limit for the Miami
Smelter, which we expect to result in no more than 0.5 percent of hours
exceeding the CEV, qualifies as assuring that such occasions of
elevated emissions will be sufficiently rare to provide for attainment,
consistent with EPA guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 83 FR 27944, June 15, 2018.
    \27\ 2014 SO2 Guidance, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs argued that there should be a clear indication of
whether or not there were hours of non-operation (i.e., zero emissions)
for each of the emission units factored into the adjustment factor
calculation and whether non-operation will be counted towards
compliance. They noted that the 2014 SO2 Guidance calls for
the

calculations to be made only during hours of operation and asserted
that it was not clear how the State determined the 0.37 adjustment
factor and how compliance will be ensured with respect to non-
operation.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that it should be clear how
hours of non-operation were accounted for in developing the adjustment
factor and how they will be used in determining compliance. Regarding
the development of the adjustment factor, we have included information
in the docket that displays the facility emission data used by the
State in determining the 0.37 adjustment factor.\28\ This adjustment
factor represents a ratio of the 99th percentile of 30-day average
emissions relative to the 99th percentile of 1-hour average emissions.
To determine the 99th percentile of the 1-hour average emissions, the
State only considered hours corresponding to periods of operation. To
determine the 99th percentile of the 30-day average emission values the
State used a running hourly mean of the most recent 720 hours that
corresponded to periods of operation. As seen in this spreadsheet,
periods of zero emissions that correspond to nonoperation were removed
from consideration in developing the adjustment factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Spreadsheet ``FMMI_EMISSION_LIMIT_TSD_20151223.xls'' and
Memorandum dated February 6, 2019, from Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX,
Air Quality Analysis Office, to Rulemaking Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2017-
0621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that there was a period during June 16-17, 2015, in which
39 hours of zero emissions were included in the set of emission data
used in developing the adjustment factor. Additional correspondence
between the EPA, ADEQ and FMMI provided further details indicating that
while no emissions occurred, this period of time corresponds to a
period of operation as defined in Rule C1302 subsection (B)(6).\29\
Specifically, FMMI indicated the electric furnace was receiving power
during this period, and that electric furnace temperature was steadily
increasing. In addition, the vent fume stack fan was also operating and
ventilating during this period. FMMI asserts that during this 39-hour
period, the electric furnace was operating and smelting, but that crust
formation prevented SO2 emissions from the electric furnace
until temperature was sufficient to melt the crust. Operating records
provided by FMMI support these details and indicate that this 39-hour
period represents initial startup after a period of nonoperation.\30\
Based on this information, we consider the inclusion of this 39-hour
period appropriate because conditions at the facility were consistent
with periods of operation that generated no emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Email dated September 19, 2018, from Farah Mohammadesmaeili
(ADEQ) to Rynda Kay (EPA), Subject: ``FW: SO2 SIP Data
Inquiry.''
    \30\ Spreadsheet ``2013 shutdown data 20181017.xlsx.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the compliance determination, we note that Rule
C1302 subsection (F)(1) requires a compliance demonstration for each
``operating day.'' Subsection (B)(6) of Rule C1302 defines ``operating
day'' as any calendar day in which any of the following occurs:
    a. Concentrate is smelted in the Electric furnace or IsaSmelt
furnace;
    b. Copper or sulfur bearing materials are processed in the
converters;
    c. Blister or scrap copper is processed in the anode furnaces or
mold vessel;
    d. Molten metal, including slag, matte or blister copper, is
transferred between vessels;
    e. Molten metal is cast into molds, anodes, or other intermediate
or final products;
    f. Power is provided to the electric furnace to make or maintain a
molten bath; or
    g. The anode furnace is heated to make or maintain a molten bath.
    In this rule, compliance with the rolling 30-day emission limit is
calculated by identifying the days during which one or more of the
relevant units was actually operating, and at the end of each operating
day computing average emissions over the most recent 30 operating days.
The emissions from those 30 days are totaled and then divided by 720
(30 days x 24 hours). The approach of determining compliance on the
basis of emissions only during operating days and defining ``operating
day'' as a day with any operation is consistent with the recommendation
in the 2014 SO2 Guidance.\31\ On the other hand, the
determination of compliance on a 720-hour basis, inherently averaging
in the zero emission values of non-operating hours during an operating
day, is not consistent with the recommendation in the 2014
SO2 Guidance that hours without operation be excluded from
the compliance determination.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 2014 SO2 Guidance, 32.
    \32\ Id. (``The MATS procedure also effectively provides that
hours with no operation have no effect on the calculated average
emission rate, which is a desirable feature in order to focus on how
well controls are operating during operating hours.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has evaluated the significance of using this compliance
determination approach for this facility as compared to a method that
excludes all non-operating hours.\33\ In the case of the Miami Smelter,
the use of data only from operating days, as opposed to using data from
all calendar days, substantially limits the inclusion of non-operating
hours. The nature of the process at the Miami Smelter involves
relatively continuous operation, so that the number of non-operating
hours within operating days is minimal. For example, the emission data
used to derive the adjustment factor, representing 12,264 hours,
include only 224 non-operating hours, less than 2 percent of the hours.
The inclusion of these non-operating hours has a negligible impact on
the rolling average, especially at peak values for this facility. For
example, the highest 30-operating day average calculated from the
dataset is 105.9 lb/hr when non-operating hours are excluded compared
to 105.2 lb/hr when non-operating hours are included. Both are well
below the facility-wide 30-day emission limit of 142.45 lb/hr. Also,
among the days represented in the top 10 percent of 30-day averages,
only 0.5 percent of the hours are non-operating hours. As the
compliance methodology for the Miami Smelter is based on an operating
day, consistent with the 2014 SO2 Guidance, and the smelter
operates continuously year-round, these non-operating hours remain
inconsequential in determining compliance with the 30-day limit.
Therefore, we conclude that this deviation from guidance will have
minimal impact and does not prevent this Miami SO2 Plan from
providing for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See ``Evaluation-FMMIComplianceMethodology.xls'' for the
EPA's evaluation of the Miami Smelter's compliance methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 SO2 Guidance also recommends that the approach
used to calculate the adjustment factor should be consistent with the
approach used to determine compliance with the longer-term limit.\34\
As described above, ADEQ computed the 99th percentile of the 30-day
average emission values used in the development of the longer-term
limit as a 720-rolling hourly average, whereas compliance is determined
using a 30-operating day average. We recalculated the adjustment factor
and resulting emission limit using the compliance methodology outlined
in Rule C1302 and found the difference was small: The adjustment factor
and 30-day limit are 0.368 and 141.80 lb/hr when calculated using a 30-
operating day average compared to 0.370 and 142.45 lb/hr when
calculated as a 720-hour running mean, a 0.4 percent difference. We

believe this difference is negligible and the conservatism built into
the State's modeling adequately demonstrates that the longer-term
emission limit in Rule C1302 provides for attainment. The State's
modeling predicts a design value of 194.1 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\), whereas the standard is 196.4 [mu]g/m\3\ (75 ppb),
providing room for this slightly higher limit in Rule C1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 2014 SO2 Guidance, Appendix C, C-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NGOs requested that the EPA take a fresh look at this
rulemaking and issue a revised proposal for public notice and comment.
    Response: We have reexamined our proposed rulemaking and have
concluded that no revised notice of proposed rulemaking is warranted.
For the reasons described in our proposal and in the preceding
responses to comments, we find that the Miami SO2 Plan meets
all applicable requirements under the CAA and the EPA's implementing
regulations. Accordingly, we are finalizing our approval of the Miami
SO2 Plan.

III. The EPA's Final Action

    The EPA is approving the Miami SO2 Plan, which includes
Arizona's attainment demonstration for the Miami SO2 NAA and
addresses requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, base-year and projected
emission inventories, new source review, enforceable emissions limits
and control measures, and contingency measures. For the reasons
described in our proposal and the related concurrence documents,\35\
the EPA is also approving the BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach as an
alternative model to represent emissions from Miami Smelter roofline in
the Miami SO2 Plan under 40 CFR 51.112(a)(2). The EPA
determines that the Miami SO2 Plan meets applicable
requirements of sections 110, 172, 191 and 192 of the CAA for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``Concurrence Request for Approval of Alternative Model:
BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Approach for Modeling Buoyant Roofline Sources at
the FMMI Copper Smelter in Miami, AZ'' (March 12, 2018) and ``Model
Clearinghouse Review of a BLP/AERMOD Hybrid Alternative Model
Approach for Modeling Buoyant Roofline Sources at the FMMI Copper
Smelter in Miami, AZ'' (March 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. 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, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: February 21, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. In Sec.  52.120, table 1 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision: Miami Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, excluding
Appendix D'' after the entry ``SIP Revision: Hayden Lead Nonattainment
Area, excluding Appendix C'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
                           [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
                                     geographic or
      Name of SIP provision        nonattainment area      State submittal date             EPA approval date                     Explanation
                                    or title/subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Part D Elements and Plans (Other Than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Arizona State Implementation      Miami, AZ Sulfur     March 9, 2017..............  [insert Federal Register           Adopted by the Arizona Department
 Plan Revision: Miami Sulfur       Dioxide                                           citation], March 12, 2019.         of Environmental Quality on
 Dioxide Nonattainment Area for    Nonattainment Area.                                                                  March 8, 2017.
 the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, excluding
 Appendix D.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part
  D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson
  Areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-04389 Filed 3-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3799]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01356]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0563; FRL-9905-78-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, CFR 40 Part 59,
Subpart C (Renewal),'' (EPA ICR Number 1764.06, OMB Control number
2060-0348) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently
approved through April 30, 2014. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0563, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0563 in the subject line of the message), or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Teal, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code
D243-04, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The EPA is required under section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act to regulate volatile organic compound emissions from the use of
consumer and commercial products. Pursuant to section 183(e)(3), the
EPA published a list of consumer and commercial products and a schedule
for their regulation (60 FR 15264). Consumer products were included on
the list, and the standards are codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart C.
The information collection includes initial reports and periodic
recordkeeping necessary for EPA to ensure compliance with Federal
standards for volatile organic compounds in consumer products.
Responses to the collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart
C, National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer
Products. All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of
Business Information.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents are manufacturers and
importers of consumer products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to the collection are
mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart C, National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products.
    Estimated number of respondents: 732 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 29,613 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,364,069 (per year), includes labor costs
of $1,364,069 and no capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no increase in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

    Dated: January 16, 2014.
Peter Tsirigotis,
Director, Office Sector Policies and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-01356 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54038]
[DOCID:fr13se06-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-094]

Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation; Notice of Negotiated Rate

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 31, 2006, Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1-A, Thirty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 15, to
become effective September 1, 2006.
    GTN states that this sheet is being filed to update GTN's reporting
of negotiated rate transactions that it has entered into.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15152 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P