[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 221 (Monday, November 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72967-72968]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24386]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0357; FRL-10016-22-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas, New Mexico, and
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From
Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that we
have received CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declarations from
Arkansas, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
for existing incinerators subject to the Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration units (CISWI) emission guidelines (EG). These
negative declarations certify that incinerators subject to CISWI EG and
the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist
within the jurisdictions of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County. The EPA is accepting the negative declarations and
amending the CFR in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0357. 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 or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janna Roberts, EPA Region 6 Office,
Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation Branch,
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75270,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our August
11, 2020, proposal (85 FR 48485). In that document we proposed to
accept the negative declarations for incinerators subject to the CISWI
EG from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED), and City of Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (AEHD), and to amend the CFR in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
    We received one comment on our proposal. We have determined that
this comment is not relevant to this rulemaking and no further response
is required.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt of the
negative declaration letters from ADEQ, NMED and AEHD certifying that
there are no existing incinerators subject to the CISWI EG subject to
40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, in in their respective jurisdictions in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.2510, 40 CFR 60.2530, 40 CFR 60.23(b), 40 CFR
62.06, and sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.
    If a designated facility is later found within the mentioned
jurisdictions after publication of the final action, then the
overlooked facility will become subject to the requirements of the
federal plan for that designated facility, including the compliance
schedule. The federal plan will no longer apply if we subsequently
receive and approve the section 111(d)/129 plan from the jurisdiction
with the overlooked facility.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA
section 111(d)/129 submission that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C.
7429; 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
A. With regard to negative declarations for designated facilities
received by the EPA from states, the EPA's role is to notify the public
of the receipt of such negative declarations and revise 40 CFR part 62
accordingly. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant 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).
    This rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: October 29. 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E--Arkansas

0
2. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  62.867 to read as
follows:

Emissions From Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units

Sec.  62.867  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality dated
April 26, 2017, certifying that there are no incinerators subject to
the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI) Emission
Guidelines, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, within its
jurisdiction.

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
3. Revise Sec.  62.7890 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.7890   Identification of sources--negative declarations.

    Letters from the New Mexico Environment Department and the City of
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department dated June 15, 2020, and
March 4, 2020, respectively, certifying that there are no incinerators
subject to the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration
(CISWI) Emission Guidelines, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, within
their respective jurisdictions in the State of New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 2020-24386 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52539-52542]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20791]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823; FRL-9915-85-Region 9]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plan Revisions; State of
California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a state implementation plan revision submitted by the
State of California to meet the vehicle miles traveled emissions offset
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards in the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin (``South Coast''). The EPA is approving this
revision because it demonstrates that California has put in place
specific enforceable transportation control strategies and
transportation control measures to offset the growth in emissions from
the growth in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips in the South
Coast, and thereby meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
A. Regulatory Background
B. CARB's Submittal
C. The EPA's Proposed Approval
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), under section 110(k) of the Clean
Air Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed approval of a submittal dated
February 13, 2013 from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) of a
revision to the California state implementation plan (SIP) for the
South Coast. The SIP revision includes demonstrations intended to show
compliance with the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset element of
CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). The following paragraphs summarize the
regulatory background, CARB's submittal, and the EPA's rationale for
proposing approval. For additional details concerning these topics,
please see our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.

A. Regulatory Background

    The specific CAA requirement that is relevant for the purposes of
this action is section 182(d)(1)(A), which applies in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as ``Severe'' or ``Extreme,'' and, in
relevant part, requires the state, if subject to its requirements, to
``submit a [SIP] revision that identifies and adopts specific
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation
control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in
vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area.'' \1\
Herein, we use ``VMT'' to refer to vehicle miles traveled or vehicle
trips, and refer to the related SIP requirement as the ``VMT emissions
offset requirement.'' In addition, we refer to the SIP revision
intended to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset
requirement as the ``VMT emissions offset demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) includes three separate elements.
This final action relates only to the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., the VMT emissions offset requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The South Coast \2\ is an ``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment area for
both the revoked 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(standard or NAAQS) and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thus, the
State of California is required to submit SIP revisions that include
VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the South Coast for both ozone
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County. The South Coast is home to
approximately 17 million people, has a diverse economic base, and
contains one of the highest-volume port areas in the world. For a
precise description of the geographic boundaries of the South Coast,
please see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement for
the 1-hour ozone standard, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration showing decreases in
aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the South Coast
from a base year (1990) through the applicable attainment year (2010).
The following year, the EPA approved the South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT
emissions offset demonstration as meeting the VMT emissions offset
requirement of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). See 74 FR 10176 (March 10,
2009). The EPA also approved the South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstration submitted in connection with the area's ``Extreme''
classification for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 77 FR 12674
(March 1, 2012). Once again, the approved demonstration showed
decreases in aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the
South Coast from a base year through the applicable attainment year.
    In approving the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations in
2009 and 2012, the EPA applied its then-longstanding interpretation of
the VMT emissions offset requirement, first explained in guidance in
the General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air Act (see 57 FR 13498,
at 13521-13523, April 16, 1992), that no transportation control
measures are necessary if aggregate motor vehicle emissions are
projected to decline each year from the base year of the plan to the
attainment year. See 74 FR 10176, at 10179-10180 (March 10, 2009); 76
FR 57872, at 57889 (September 16, 2011). However, in response to a
legal challenge brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the Court ruled against the EPA's approval of the South Coast
VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard,
determining that the EPA incorrectly interpreted the statutory phrase
``growth in emissions'' in section 182(d)(1)(A) as meaning a growth in
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT.
Essentially, the Court ruled that additional transportation control
measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be
higher than they would have been had VMT not increased, even when
aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. However, the Court
acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances could result in

there being no increase in emissions even in the face of VMT growth,
which would then allow VMT to increase without triggering the
requirement to adopt offsetting transportation control measures.
Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 596-597
(9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d
668, further amended February 13, 2012.
    Based on this reasoning, the Court remanded the approval of the
South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
standard back to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with the
opinion. In response, we withdrew our approval of the South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and
disapproved it. See 78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013). Furthermore, because
our approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was predicated on the same rationale as
the corresponding South Coast demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
standard that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit, we withdrew our
approval of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and disapproved it as well. Id. Our
disapproval of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstrations triggered sanctions clocks under CAA section 179(a) that
would lead to sanctions within a certain period of time unless
California submitted, and the EPA approved, SIP revisions that
addressed the deficiency upon which the disapproval was based.
    In the wake of the decision in the Association of Irritated
Residents case cited above, and in addition to withdrawing our approval
of the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations and
disapproving the same, the EPA issued a guidance document, Guidance on
Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control
Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in
Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled (herein referred to
as the ``August 2012 guidance''), which includes a revised methodology
for states to use in their VMT emissions offset demonstrations.\3\ The
guidance discusses the meaning of the terms, ``transportation control
strategies'' (TCSs) and ``transportation control measures'' (TCMs), and
recommends that both TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations made
for the purpose of determining the degree to which any hypothetical
growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. Generally,
TCSs is a broad term that encompasses many types of controls including,
for example, motor vehicle emission limitations, inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative fuel programs, other
technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would fit within the
regulatory definition of ``control strategy.'' See, e.g., 40 CFR
51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 51.100(r) as meaning ``any
measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air pollutants
from transportation sources. Such measures include, but are not limited
to those listed in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]'' and
generally refer to programs intended to reduce the VMT, the number of
vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved
public transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and
high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction ordinances, and similar
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and
Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl
Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA
Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9,
August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that
the VMT emissions offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with
the Court's ruling. States are recommended to estimate emissions for
the nonattainment area's base year and the attainment year. One
emission inventory is developed for the base year, and three different
emissions inventory scenarios are developed for the attainment year.
For the attainment year, the state would present three emissions
estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical emissions
scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the ``growth in
emissions'' due solely to the growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions
obtained by all creditable TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance
for specific details on how states might conduct the calculations.

B. CARB's Submittal

    On February 13, 2013, in response to the EPA's final disapproval of
the previous South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations, CARB
submitted revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations for
the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. CARB then provided
supplemental information and analysis on April 3, 2014.

C. The EPA's Proposed Approval

    As noted above, on May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29705), the EPA proposed
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations
submitted by CARB to meet the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions
offset requirement for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards
in the South Coast. The EPA proposed to approve the revision because it
demonstrated that California had put in place specific enforceable TCSs
and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT and
vehicle trips in the South Coast, and thereby met the applicable
requirements in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). In addition, based on our
proposed approval of the VMT emissions offset demonstrations, we issued
an interim final determination that deferred the imposition of
sanctions triggered by our March 28, 2013 disapproval of previous
versions of the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations. See 79
FR 29680 (May 23, 2014).
    Our full evaluation of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset
demonstrations for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards can
be found in our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. In summary, the results
from the State's VMT emissions offset calculations establish projected
actual attainment-year VOC emissions of 65 tons per day (tpd) for the
1-hour standard demonstration and 62 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard
demonstration. The State then compared these projected actual emissions
values against the attainment year scenario for no growth in VMT and
trips and no additional TCMs or TCSs. This calculation is also referred
to as the ``VMT offset ceiling.'' By comparing the projected actual
attainment year emissions against the VMT offset ceiling, the State
(along with the EPA and the public) can determine whether additional
TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to
offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT. Because the
projected actual emissions in both the 1-hour standard demonstration
and the 1997 8-hour standard demonstration are less than the
corresponding VMT offset ceiling emissions, the State concluded that
the demonstration shows compliance with the VMT emissions offset
requirement and that there are sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT in the South
Coast for

both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As described in the EPA's May 23, 2014 proposed rule, the
offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and TCMs put in
place after the respective base year can be determined by
subtracting the projected actual emissions estimates from the no
action emissions estimates. For the purposes of the 1-hour ozone
demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 423 tpd (488 tpd
minus 65 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and
vehicle trips, 176 tpd (488 tpd minus 312 tpd). See table 1 on page
29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule. For the purposes of the 8-
hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 53
tpd (115 tpd minus 62 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from
growth in VMT and vehicle trips, 26 tpd (115 tpd minus 89 tpd). See
table 2 on page 29710 of our May 23, 2014 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the State's submittal, including the
technical supplement, we found the State's analysis to be acceptable
and agreed that the State had adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs to
offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in
the South Coast for the purposes of the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. As such, we found that the revised South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstrations complied with the VMT emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, we proposed
approval of the revised South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstrations
for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a revision to
the California SIP.

II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?

    Our May 23, 2014 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period. During this period, we received one comment: an email from a
private citizen representing the Public Solar Power Coalition (PSPC).
We provide our response to this comment below.
    Comment: PSPC, noting ongoing litigation over the 2012 South Coast
Air Quality Management Plan, requests that sanctions be imposed on
California and the District. PSCP also calls for adoption by SCAQMD of
an Immediate Solar Conversion Plan as a control measure, with full
implementation by 2020 at the latest, contending that that the
Immediate Solar Conversion Plan is cost effective and represents RACT/
RACM. PSPC also requested a 60-day extension of the comment period to
allow more time to get the more recent information into the records.
    Response: Our proposed rule relates to the South Coast VMT offset
demonstration submitted by CARB as a revision to the California SIP to
address the VMT-related requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for
the South Coast ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour
ozone standards. Section 182(d)(1)(A) requires states to submit SIP
revisions for such areas that identify and adopt specific TCSs and TCMs
to offset any growth in emissions due to growth in VMT in such areas.
    In our proposed rule, we concluded that, with the TCSs and TCMs put
in place by the various relevant state and regional agencies, the
required demonstrations have been made. PSPC does not challenge our
conclusion but rather seeks to compel the state to adopt a specific
additional control measure referred to by PSPC as the Immediate Solar
Conversion Plan. However, the EPA's role in reviewing SIPs and SIP
revisions is to ensure that the states meet the requirements of the
CAA, and California has demonstrated how it meets the requirement
without adoption and implementation of the Immediate Solar Power
Conversion Plan. Therefore, we have no authority to require California
to adopt and implement such a plan to comply with CAA section
182(d)(1)(A). Furthermore, because we have concluded that California
has met the applicable requirements, sanctions would not be authorized
under the CAA.
    Lastly, we have decided not to extend the comment period because
further information concerning the Immediate Solar Power Conversion
Plan would not change our conclusion that California has submitted a
SIP revision that meets the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
for the South Coast and would not, therefore, provide a basis for us to
reconsider our approval of the SIP revision under CAA section 110(k).

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), for the reasons set forth above and in
greater detail in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving CARB's
submittal dated February 13, 2013 of the revised South Coast VMT
emissions offset demonstrations \5\ for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards, as supplemented by CARB on April 3, 2014, as a
revision to the California SIP. We are approving this SIP revision
because it demonstrates that California has put in place specific
enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation
control measures to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in
VMT and vehicle trips in the South Coast for both the 1-hour ozone and
1997 8-hour ozone standards, and thereby meets the applicable
requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Contained in the appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled
Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the SCAQMD's Final 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the effective date of today's final approval, all sanctions
and sanctions clocks that were triggered upon our final disapproval at
78 FR 18849 (March 28, 2013) of previous versions of the South Coast
VMT emissions offset demonstrations, and deferred upon our interim
final rule at 79 FR 29680 (May 23, 2014), are permanently terminated.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action
merely approves a state plan revision as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For these reasons, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address

disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 3, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 13, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs
(c)(439)(ii)(A)(3) and (c)(439)(ii)(B)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (439) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Letter and enclosures from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, dated April 3, 2014, providing
supplemental information related to Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles
Traveled Emissions Offset Demonstration'') of the Final 2012 Air
Quality Management Plan.
    (B) * * *
    (4) Appendix VIII (``Vehicle Miles Traveled Emissions Offset
Demonstration'') (December 2012) of the Final 2012 Air Quality
Management Plan.

[FR Doc. 2014-20791 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44942-44945]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049; FRL-9966-68]

Oxathiapiprolin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide oxathiapiprolin in or on cacao bean, dried bean.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerance
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 27, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2017,
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-2016-0049, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 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-2016-0049 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
November 27, 2017. 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-2016-0049, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Tuesday, December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92758)
(FRL-9956-04), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP# 6E8505) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-
4). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.685 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide oxathiapiprolin,
1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-
1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-
ethanone, in or on cacao bean, bean at 0.10 parts per million (ppm);
cacao bean, roasted bean at 0.15 ppm; cacao bean, chocolate at 0.15
ppm; and cacao bean, cocoa powder at 0.15 ppm. A summary of the
petition prepared by IR-4 is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received on the notice of
filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances that differ from what the petitioner requested
including; the commodity definition, tolerance level, and for which
commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), 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 oxathiapiprolin including exposure resulting
from the tolerance established by this action, consistent with FFDCA
section 408(b)(2).
    In the Federal Register of Monday, December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87463)
(FRL-9954-69), EPA established tolerances for residues of
oxathiapiprolin in or on several food commodities. The risk assessments
supporting that action aggregated dietary and non-occupational
exposures from existing and proposed uses of oxathiapiprolin, including
from the exposures associated with the tolerances requested in this
action. That assessment, which included the tolerances in today's
action, concluded that the tolerances are safe; therefore, EPA is
incorporating the findings in that Federal Register document and the
supporting risk assessments as the basis for the safety finding in this
tolerance rulemaking. In brief, the Agency determined that the lack of
toxicity of oxathiapiprolin warranted a qualitative risk assessment,
without the need for the additional Food Quality Protection Act safety
factor to protect infants and children.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by oxathiapiprolin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document, ``Oxathiapiprolin--New Active
Ingredient Human Health Risk Assessment of Uses on Turf, Ornamentals,
and a Number of Crops'' dated June 25, 2015, in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2016-0049-0018. In addition, an abbreviated human health risk
assessment document was developed to support the proposed uses of
oxathiapiprolin on multiple crops, including cacao. That document,
``SUBJECT: Oxathiapiprolin. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the
Registration of New Uses of the Fungicide on Various Crops'' dated
October 31, 2016 is available in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049-
0017.
    In conclusion, based on the findings of the December 5, 2016
Federal Register document and the supporting documents, 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 oxathiapiprolin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Method 30422 (Supplement No. 1) was developed for plant
commodities, and Method 31138 was developed for livestock commodities.
Residues of oxathiapiprolin and associated metabolites are extracted
from crop or livestock commodity samples using a solution of formic
acid, water and acetonitrile, and diluted with acetonitrile and water.
Both methods use liquid chromotography with tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS), specifically reverse-phase liquid chromatography (LC), and
detection by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).
    The FDA multi-residue methods are not suitable for detection and
enforcement of oxathiapiprolin residues or associated metabolites.
However, the European Multiresidue Method (DFG Method S19) and the
QuEChERS Multiresidue Method have shown success in some matrices.
    Adequate enforcement methodology (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce
the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch/BEAD/OPP, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. George G. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410)
305-2905; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 Nations
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 maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
oxathiapiprolin.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    A tolerance is established for ``Cacao bean, dried bean'', rather
than ``Cacao bean, bean'', to comply with current Agency crop-naming
policy. Also, EPA determined that tolerances for residues of
oxathiapiprolin in or on the processed commodities of cacao bean,
roasted bean; cacao bean, chocolate; and cacao bean, cocoa powder are
unnecessary because these commodities are covered by cacao bean, dried
bean tolerance. Finally, the tolerance for cacao bean, dried bean is
being established at 0.15 ppm, rather than at 0.1 ppm as requested,
based on the available residue data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of the fungicide
oxathiapiprolin, 1-[4-[4-[5-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-
isoxazolyl]-2-thiazolyl]-1-piperidinyl]-2-[5-methyl-3-
(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-ethanone, in or on cacao bean, dried
bean at 0.15 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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 action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. 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: August 29, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
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. In Sec.  180.685, redesignate paragraph (a)(1) as paragraph (a) and
add alphabetically the following commodity ``Cacao bean, dried bean''
to the table in paragraph (a) in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  180.685  Oxathiapiprolin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Cacao bean, dried bean......................................        0.15

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-20747 Filed 9-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34852-34853]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11391]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128; FRL-5788-03-OAR]

Release of the Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides
of Sulfur and Particulate Matter--External Review Draft

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: On or about May 31, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will make available for public comment the draft document, Draft
Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur and
Particulate Matter--External Review Draft (PA). This draft document was
prepared as a part of the current review of the Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur and Particulate Matter. When final, the PA serves to ``bridge
the gap'' between the currently available scientific and technical
information and the judgments required of the Administrator in
determining whether to retain or revise the existing secondary
NO2, SO2 and PM NAAQS. The secondary NAAQS for
oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur and particulate matter are set to
protect the public welfare from known or anticipated effects of these
pollutants in the ambient air.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0128, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this notice. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. The draft document
described here will be available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/nitrogen-dioxide-no2-and-sulfur-dioxide-so2-secondary-air-quality-standards. The documents will be accessible under
``Policy Assessments'' for the current review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Tennant, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, (Mail Code

C504-06), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0128, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.

II. Information About the Documents

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) govern the
establishment and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then
issue ``air quality criteria'' for those pollutants. The air quality
criteria are to ``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge
useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of
such pollutant in the ambient air. . .'' (CAA section 108(a)(2)). Under
section 109 of the Act, the EPA is then to establish primary (health-
based) and secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for each pollutant for which
the EPA has issued air quality criteria. Section 109(d)(1) of the Act
requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air
quality criteria. Revised air quality criteria are to reflect advances
in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public
health and welfare. Under the same provision, the EPA is also to
periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS, based on the
revised air quality criteria. The Act additionally requires appointment
of an independent scientific review committee that is to periodically
review the existing air quality criteria and NAAQS and to recommend any
new standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as may
be appropriate (CAA section 109(d)(2)(A)-(B)). Since the early 1980s,
the requirement for an independent scientific review committee has been
fulfilled by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
    In characterizing effects related to atmospheric deposition of
oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur and their transformation
products, this review also recognizes the contribution of PM through
deposition to eutrophication-related effects, acidification-related
effects, and other such welfare effects, as well to the direct and
other indirect effects on vegetation, soils, and biota. Addressing the
pollutants together enables us to take a comprehensive look at the
nature and interactions of the pollutants, which is important for
ensuring that all scientific information relevant to ecological effects
is thoroughly evaluated. This approach also addresses the CASAC's
comments on the draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) for this review, as
well as the CASAC's comments on the draft IRP for the PM NAAQS review.
In particular, the CASAC expressed concern that PM deposition-related
effects were not adequately covered in the PM review; and they also
encouraged the EPA to include all reduced nitrogen compounds, including
ammonia and ammonium, to properly evaluate ecological impacts from
nitrogen deposition in the secondary standards review for oxides of
nitrogen and oxides of sulfur (Diez Roux and Fernandez, 2016; Diez
Roux, 2016). Additional welfare effects associated with PM, such as
visibility impairment, climate effects and materials damage, and the
health effects of PM (including particulate transformation products of
oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur) are considered as part of the
separate review of the NAAQS for PM.
    In March 2017, EPA released the first external review draft of the
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter Ecological Criteria, which was then
discussed at a CASAC meeting May 24-25, 2017. Comments from the CASAC
(Diez Roux, 2017) and the public were considered in preparing the
second external review draft (June 2018), which was then discussed at a
CASAC meeting September 5-6, 2018, and April 27, 2020. CASAC provided a
final letter on the second draft ISA in May 2020 (Cox, 2020), and in
October 2020, EPA released the final ISA for NOX,
SOX, and PM ecological criteria (U.S. EPA, 2020).
    This draft PA serves to ``bridge the gap'' between the scientific
and technical information in the 2020 ISA and any air quality,
exposure, and risk analyses available in this review, and the judgments
required of the Administrator in determining whether to retain or
revise the existing secondary ambient air quality standards for
NO2, SO2 and PM. The draft PA document will be
available on or about May 31, 2023, on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/nitrogen-dioxide-no2-and-sulfur-dioxide-so2-secondary-air-quality-standards. The EPA is soliciting advice and
recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review of this draft
document in an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. Information about
this public meeting, including the dates and location, was published as
a separate notice in the Federal Register on March 23, 2023 (88 FR
17572). Following the CASAC meeting, the EPA will consider comments
received from the CASAC and the public in preparing the final PA.
    The Draft PA will be available primarily via the internet at:
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/nitrogen-dioxide-no2-and-sulfur-dioxide-so2-secondary-air-quality-standards. The document will be accessible under
``Policy Assessments'' from the current review. The draft document
briefly described above does not represent and should not be construed
to represent any final EPA policy, viewpoint, or determination.

Erika Sasser,
Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-11391 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 63120]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25144]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2014-0001; FRL-9918-31-OA]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Notification of Public Advisory
Committee Teleconference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Advisory Committee Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(Board) will hold a public teleconference on October 30, 2014 from
11:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Due to budgetary issues, EPA is
announcing this teleconference with less than 15 calendar days public
notice. The meeting is open to the public. For further information
regarding the teleconference and background materials, please contact
Ann-Marie Gantner at the number provided below.
    Background: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board is a federal
advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
PL 92-463. By statute, the Board is required to submit an annual report
to the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure
issues along the U.S. border with Mexico.
    Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this teleconference is to
discuss and approve the Board's Sixteenth Report, which focuses on
ecological restoration in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
    General Information: The agenda and teleconference materials will
be available at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-
2014-0001. General information about the Board can be found on its Web
site at http://www2.epa.gov/faca/gneb.
    If you wish to make oral comments or submit written comments to the
Board, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at least five days prior to the
teleconference. Written comments should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2014-0001.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at
(202) 564-4330 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request
accommodation of a disability, please contact Ann-Marie Gantner at
least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time as possible
to process your request.

    Dated: October 10, 2014.
Ann-Marie Gantner,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25144 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Fact  Fact Sheet

PERSONNEL SAFETY ZONES FOR ON-DOCK CONTAINER RAIL OPERATIONS

The intent of this Fact Sheet is to create a safer work environment for
longshore and other workers engaged in on-dock rail operations by
establishing guidelines for a buffer zone between the workers and
vehicles.

An increasing number of marine cargo handling facilities are being
serviced by longshoremen employed to load intermodal containers on
specialized rail cars.  During these operations on-foot workers engaged
in on-dock rail operations are exposed to the hazards of being struck by
mobile equipment or transiting vehicles.  This type of work requires
workers' full attention to the task at hand, leaving little room for
distractions by passing equipment/vehicles.  Such equipment/vehicles,
which normally operate in close proximity to rail lines include:
top/side handlers, reach stackers, rail mounted gantry cranes (RMG's),
rubber tired gantry cranes (RTG's), straddle carriers, semi-tractors,
and pick-up trucks.

A Personnel Safety Zone (buffer zone) should be established when a
hazard exists of an on-dock rail worker being struck by a vehicle
operating in the yard.   When established, the Personnel Safety Zone
should be wide enough to allow workers to safely walk around all
mechanical equipment (e.g. pope mobile) required for the operation
without stepping into the traffic lane.

Personnel Safety Zones should be marked and readily visible for work
conditions and can be created in a number of ways.  These include:

Painted lines on the dock surface;

Safety cones or flares;

Barricading with a vehicle or other objects; and

Use of a flag man or other devices or methods that will ensure the
workers safety.

Traffic lanes that pass in close proximity to rail operations may
require the use of a Personnel Safety Zone.  This will help to slow
traffic near rail operations and to ensure that traffic does not pass in
close proximity to an active rail operation.  When a Personnel Safety
Zone is established near a traffic lane, employers need to ensure that
the traffic lane is wide enough to accommodate all equipment (including
cargo) that is expected to transit the area without impinging on the
safety of on-dock rail workers.

The following procedures are also recommended or required for increased
safety during

on-dock rail operations:

Supervisors should give a “safety talk” at the beginning of each
shift that includes the layout of the yard, projected rail activity,
and/or individual responsibility to control speed and maintain a safe
distance from on-dock rail operations.

The traffic pattern at the rail facility should be well established and
known to the drivers and workers on foot.

Employers should have a written procedure for notifying supervisory
personnel and workers of scheduled and unscheduled train movement.

Employers must ensure that employees know and follow applicable OSHA
vehicle requirements (e.g., 29 CFR 1917.43, 1917.44 and 1910.178(l)) and
must ensure that only trained and authorized employees are permitted to
operate vehicles in marine terminals as required in 29 CFR 1917.27(a).

All employees must wear and properly use all provided personal
protective equipment (PPE) necessary for the work being performed.  (see
29 CFR 1917 subpart E).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65434-65436]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26338]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68075; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-046]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Definition of ``Money Market
Instrument'' in FINRA Rule 6710(o)

October 22, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 11, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to exclude additional short-term discount notes
from the definition of TRACE-Eligible Security in FINRA Rule 6710(a) by
amending the definition of ``Money Market Instrument'' in FINRA Rule
6710(o) of the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA proposes to amend the definition of ``Money Market
Instrument'' in FINRA Rule 6710(o) for purposes of the TRACE rules. The
proposed amendment would modify the definition of Money Market
Instrument to include discount notes that are issued by an Agency or a
Government-Sponsored Enterprise (hereinafter, referred to as agency
discount notes) \4\ and have a maturity of one calendar year and one
day or less from the date of issuance (i.e., not later than 366 days
from the date of issuance, or if a leap year, not later than 367 days
from the date of issuance), which would exclude such short-term
instruments from the definition of TRACE-Eligible Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The terms ``Agency'' and ``Government-Sponsored Enterprise''
are defined in FINRA Rules 6710(k) and 6710(n), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a Money Market Instrument is defined in FINRA Rule
6710(o) as ``a debt security that at issuance has a maturity of one
year or less.'' Such products are excluded from the definition of
TRACE-Eligible Security in FINRA Rule 6710(a) and thus are not subject
to TRACE reporting and dissemination. FINRA interprets a Money Market
Instrument to include an instrument with a 365 day term (or in a leap
year, a 366 day term). For example, a debt security that is issued on
September 15, 2012 and matures on September 14, 2013, is a Money Market
Instrument (and thus not subject to TRACE reporting and dissemination).
In contrast, an instrument that is issued on September 15, 2012 and
matures on September 15, 2013 is not a Money Market Instrument (and
thus is a TRACE-Eligible Security subject to TRACE reporting and
dissemination).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ One year or less is one calendar year (adjusted accordingly
during a leap year), with the date of issuance counted as the first
day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposes to modify the definition of Money Market Instrument
in FINRA Rule 6710(o) to include a significant number of agency
discount notes. Consistent with a market convention that pre-dates
TRACE, such agency discount notes are frequently issued and routinely
mature 366 days (or, in a leap year, 367 days) from the date of
issuance. Although these instruments are technically included in the
universe of TRACE-Eligible Securities today, FINRA believes that such
instruments should be treated as Money Market Instruments, which is
consistent with the trading of such instruments, and not subject to
TRACE reporting and dissemination. Accordingly, FINRA proposes to amend
FINRA Rule 6710(o) to define ``Money Market Instrument'' as a ``debt
security that at issuance has a maturity of one calendar year or less,
or, if a discount note issued by an Agency, as defined in FINRA Rule
6710(k), or a Government-Sponsored Enterprise, as defined in FINRA Rule
6710(n), a maturity of one calendar year and one day or less.''
    FINRA believes that the proposed amendment is appropriate and would
give effect to FINRA's intention to exclude money market instruments
generally from TRACE. In addition, the proposed amendment would reduce
any market confusion regarding the appropriate treatment of these
short-term instruments. Moreover, excluding agency discount notes from
TRACE reporting and dissemination should not adversely impact price
transparency, as the agency discount notes are in demand and generally
trade actively at narrow spreads.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule
change immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change to modify
the definition of Money Market Instrument to include agency discount
notes having a term of one calendar year and one day or less will
protect investors and the public interest by reducing market confusion
and possible misreporting and enhance market transparency by clarifying
the short-term instruments that are to be reported to TRACE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
FINRA has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of

investors and the public interest because such action should help
minimize any market confusion regarding the TRACE-eligibility of agency
discount notes. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-046 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-046. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-046 and should be
submitted on or before November 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26338 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P