[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 38265]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending June 11, 2011

    The following applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures.
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0112.
    Date Filed: June 8, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: June 29, 2011.
    Description: Application of Victory Jet, LLC requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to
engage in interstate air transportation of persons, property, and mail
on a charter.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0114.
    Date Filed: June 9, 2011.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: June 30, 2011.
    Description: Application of Cyprus Airways Public Limited (``Cyprus
Airways'') requesting a foreign air carrier permit and related
exemption that would enable it to provide: (a) Foreign scheduled and
charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail from any
point or points behind any Member State of the European Union via any
point or points in any Member State and via intermediate points to any
point or points in the United States and beyond; (b) foreign scheduled
and charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail between
any point or points in the United States and any point or points in any
member of the European Common Aviation Area (``ECAA''); (c) other
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements; and (d)
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available
to European Community carriers in the future.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-16285 Filed 6-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22887-22889]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61981; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Concerning Intermarket Option Linkage

April 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on April 20, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Nasdaq. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to delete its Temporary Rule Governing Phase-Out of P and P/A Orders
\3\ and amend several references in the rules to the Plan for the
Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Linkage (``Linkage
Plan'').\4\ In addition, the Exchange also proposes to amend its fees
in Rule 7050, NASDAQ Options Market, to discontinue its current pilot
program (the ``pilot'') relating to options

transaction fees for trades executed via the Intermarket Option Linkage
(``Linkage'') on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Chapter XII, Intermarket Linkage Rules, Section 4,
Temporary Rule Governing Phase-Out of P and P/A Orders.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57545 (March 21,
2008), 73 FR 16394 (March 27, 2008). On July 28, 2000, the
Commission approved a national market system plan for the purpose of
creating and operating an intermarket options market linkage
(``Linkage'') proposed by the then American Stock Exchange LLC, now
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), and International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43086 (July 28, 2000), 65 FR
48023, (August 4, 2000). Subsequently, Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc., now NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx''), Pacific Exchange, Inc.,
now NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.,
now NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BSX'') joined the Linkage Plan. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 43573 (November 16, 2000), 65
FR 70851, (November 28, 2000); 43574 (November 16, 2000), 65 FR
70850, (November 28, 2000); and 49198 (February 5, 2004), 69 FR
7029, (February 12, 2004). The Exchange was added as a Participant
to the Linkage Plan. Linkage was governed by the Options Linkage
Authority under the conditions set forth under the Plan for the
Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage
approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com, on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.sec.gov, at Nasdaq, 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, the Exchange 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate existing
references to the Linkage Plan and also replace some references to the
Linkage Plan with references to the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Plan'') in order to clarify the current
rules in effect.
    On June 17, 2008, the Exchange filed the Plan, joining all other
approved options markets in adopting the Plan.\5\ The Plan requires
each options exchange to adopt rules implementing various requirements
specified in the Plan. The Plan replaces the former Linkage Plan. The
Linkage Plan required Participating Exchanges to operate a stand-alone
system or ``Linkage'' for sending order-flow between exchanges to limit
trade-throughs.\6\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') operated
the Linkage system (the ``System'').\7\ The Exchange adopted various
new rules in connection with the Plan to avoid trade-throughs and
locked markets, among other things.\8\ The Exchange currently offers
private routing directly to away markets.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60405 (July 30,
2009), 74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (National Market System Plan
Relating to Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Markets).
The Plan is a national market system plan proposed by the seven
existing options exchanges and approved by the Commission. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59647 (March 30, 2009), 74 FR
15010 (April 2, 2009) (``Plan Notice'') and 60405 (July 30, 2009),
74 FR 39362 (August 6, 2009) (``Plan Approval''). The seven options
exchanges are: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''); International Securities Exchange LLC (``ISE''); NASDAQ
OMX BX, Inc. (``BOX''); The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'');
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''); and
Phlx (each exchange individually a ``Participant'' and, together,
the ``Participating Options Exchanges'').
    \6\ See footnote 4.
    \7\ See footnote 4.
    \8\ See footnote 5.
    \9\ See Chapter VI, Trading Systems, Section 11, Order Routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange adopted a temporary rule entitled Temporary Rule
Governing Phase-Out of P and P/A Orders (``Temporary Rule''),\10\ in
order to facilitate the participation of certain Participating
Exchanges who may require the use of Principal Acting as Agent Orders
(``P/A Orders'') \11\ and Principal Orders (``P'') \12\ after
implementation of the Plan.\13\ Certain Participating Exchanges
required a temporary transition period during which they continued to
utilize these order types that existed under the Linkage Plan. The
Exchange proposed substantially similar rules with that of the other
Participating Exchanges to accommodate the possibility of continued use
of P/A Orders and P Orders. At this time all Participating Exchanges
have discontinued use of the Linkage Plan. The Exchange proposes at
this time to delete this Temporary Rule because it is no longer
necessary in light of the discontinued use of the Linkage Plan. The
Exchange also proposes to delete a reference to the Linkage Plan in
Chapter VII, Market Participants, Section 5, Obligations of Market
Makers. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1,
Definitions, in Chapter XII, Intermarket Linkage Rules, to redefine
``Plan'' to comport with the new Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Chapter XII, Intermarket Linkage Rules, Section 4,
Temporary Rule Governing Phase-Out of P and P/A Orders.
    \11\ A P/A Order is an order for the principal account of a
Primary Market Maker (or equivalent entity on another Eligible
Exchange that is authorized to represent Public Customer orders),
reflecting the terms of a related unexecuted Public Customer order
for which the Primary Market Maker is acting as agent. See Chapter
XII, Section 4(d)(4)(i).
    \12\ A Principal Order is an order for the principal account of
a market maker (or equivalent entity on another Eligible Exchange)
and is not a P/A Order. See Chapter XII, Section 4 (d)(ii).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60525 (August 18,
2009), 74 FR 43188 (August 26, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-056). Linkage
was governed by the Options Linkage Authority under the conditions
set forth under the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating
an Intermarket Option Linkage approved by the Commission. The
registered U.S. options markets were linked together on a real-time
basis through a network capable of transporting orders and messages
to and from each market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue the current pilot program
related to transaction fees sent to the Exchange via Linkage. The
current pilot is set to expire July 31, 2010.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60407 (July 30,
2009), 74 FR 39720 (August 7, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-073).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's current rule, the fee for members or non-
members entering orders via Linkage that execute on the Exchange is
$0.45 per executed contract. Because there are no longer any
participant exchanges to the Linkage Plan, the Exchange proposes to
discontinue the pilot. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 7050,
NASDAQ Options Market, to remove all references to Linkage fees.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by proposing the elimination of its Temporary Rule, which
reflects usage of a former Linkage Plan that has since been replaced by
a new Plan. In addition, the Exchange believes that amending its Rules
to refer to the current Plan and by proposing to discontinue its pilot,
to clarify that Linkage fees are no longer applicable, will provide its
members clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition 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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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 after the
date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 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 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.
Nasdaq has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-051 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-NASDAQ-2010-051. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. 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-
NASDAQ-2010-051 and should be submitted on or before May 21, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10082 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 17, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64110-64115]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24915]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0540; FRL-9201-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Rhinelander
Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate the Rhinelander nonattainment area, which consists of a
portion of Oneida County (Crescent Township, Newbold Township, Pine
Lake Township, Pelican Township, and the City of Rhinelander), to
attainment for the 2010 primary, health-based 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is
also proposing to approve Wisconsin's maintenance plan for the
Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment area. Wisconsin submitted the
request for approval of the Rhinelander area's redesignation and
maintenance plan on July 28, 2021. EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's
attainment plan for the Rhinelander area on July 22, 2021, and EPA will
not finalize this action until the attainment plan is approved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2021-0540 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the

full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. Background and Redesignation Requirements
II. Determination of Attainment
III. Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
IV. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
V. Maintenance Plan
VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section 110 and Part D
VII. What action is EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Redesignation Requirements

    In 2010, EPA established a revised primary, health-based 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb) (75 FR 35520, June
22, 2010). On August 5, 2013, EPA designated the Rhinelander area as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2009-2011 (78 FR 47191). The
Rhinelander area is comprised of Crescent Township, Newbold Township,
Pine Lake Township, Pelican Township, and the City of Rhinelander in
Oneida County. Wisconsin submitted an attainment plan for the
Rhinelander area on January 22, 2016, and supplemented it on July 18,
2016, and November 29, 2016. On March 23, 2021, EPA partially approved
and partially disapproved Wisconsin's Rhinelander SO2 plan,
as submitted and supplemented in 2016, for failure to comply with EPA's
stack height regulations (86 FR 15418).\1\ On March 29, 2021, Wisconsin
submitted a permit containing a more stringent emission limit for
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]'s Rhinelander facility (Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml])
(formerly Expera Specialty Solutions LLC (Expera)), the main
SO2 source in the area, and supplemental information in
order to remedy the plan's deficiencies specified in EPA's March 23,
2021, rulemaking. The plan includes modeling to show that compliance
with emission limits results in attainment of the standard and ongoing
maintenance. EPA proposed to approve Wisconsin's revised plan for
bringing the Rhinelander area into attainment on July 22, 2021 (86 FR
38643), and EPA will not finalize this action until the attainment plan
is approved and effective. On July 28, 2021, Wisconsin submitted a
request to redesignate the Rhinelander area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more discussion on stack height, see EPA's November 25,
2020, proposed partial approval and partial disapproval (85 FR
75273).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d)(3)(E), there are five
criteria which must be met before a nonattainment area may be
redesignated to attainment:
    1. EPA has determined that the relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area.
    2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k).
    3. EPA has determined that improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the
SIP, Federal regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions.
    4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA.
    5. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under
section 110 and part D.

II. Determination of Attainment

    The first requirement for redesignation is to demonstrate that the
NAAQS has been attained in the area. As stated in EPA's April 2014
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,'' there are two components needed to support an attainment
determination: A review of representative air quality monitoring data
and a further analysis, generally requiring air quality modeling, to
demonstrate that the entire area is attaining the applicable NAAQS,
based on current actual emissions or the fully implemented control
strategy. Wisconsin has addressed both components.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.17, the SO2 NAAQS is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50 at all relevant monitoring
sites in the subject area. Wisconsin operates one SO2
monitoring site in the Rhinelander area: Rhinelander Tower monitor (AQS
ID 55-085-0996). The Rhinelander Tower monitor site is located at 434
High Street under the Rhinelander municipal water tower. EPA has
reviewed the ambient air monitoring data from the Rhinelander Tower
monitor, focusing on air quality data collected from 2012 through 2020.
For each of these calendar years, the data are quality-assured,
certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The 2020 quarter 4 data did not meet the completeness
criterion due to some invalidated data. However, when data from all
4 quarters of 2020 were evaluated together, the completeness
criterion was met for the 2020 calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 1 and 2 of this document show the 99th percentile results
and three-year average design values, respectively, for the Rhinelander
Tower monitor for 2012-2020. The Rhinelander Tower monitor design
values are 69 ppb for 2016-2018, 36 ppb for 2017-2019, and 36 ppb for
2018-2020, which are all below the SO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA
finds that Wisconsin has demonstrated that Rhinelander's SO2
monitor shows attainment.

                  Table 1--Wisconsin's Monitoring Data for the Rhinelander SO2 Nonattainment Area for 2012-2020--99th Percentile Values
                                                                          [ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Site ID                             Location              2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55-085-0996..............................  Rhinelander Tower Monitor...      174      153      162      156      129       38       40       29       39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Table 2--Wisconsin's Monitoring Data for the Rhinelander SO2 Nonattainment Area for 2012-2019--Design Values
                                                                          [ppb]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Site ID                               Location             2012-2014  2013-2015  2014-2016  2015-2017  2016-2018  2017-2019  2018-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
55-085-0996................................  Rhinelander Tower Monitor.....       163        157        149        108         69         36         36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to ambient air quality monitoring data, Wisconsin
utilized an approach based on computer modeling, which relied on
allowable emissions in Wisconsin's attainment plan to additionally
characterize the attainment status of the SO2 NAAQS and to
provide for maintaining SO2 emissions in the Rhinelander
area below the SO2 NAAQS through 2032. EPA proposed to
approve this modeling on July 22, 2021, as part of Wisconsin's
attainment plan, and EPA will not finalize this action until
Wisconsin's attainment plan is approved and effective.
    Regarding the requirement for Wisconsin to demonstrate that the
entire area is attaining the SO2 NAAQS, Wisconsin also
referred to the dispersion modeling analysis which was submitted as
part of its attainment plan for Rhinelander. This analysis demonstrated
that revised SO2 emission limits for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]
would provide for attainment, as Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] accounts for
over 94 percent of the modeled SO2 concentration in the
Rhinelander area. Wisconsin has confirmed that Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]
and the other facilities included in the modeling analysis are
currently in full compliance with their emission limits. Beginning
December 31, 2021, Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] will be subject to a more
stringent emission limit, which will ensure that actual emissions are
at or below the levels Wisconsin used in its modeling analysis. The
modeling analysis was discussed in detail in the July 22, 2021, notice
of proposed rulemaking for the Rhinelander SO2 attainment
plan (86 FR 38643). In this action, EPA proposes to find that this
modeling analysis and the monitored air quality data demonstrate that
the Rhinelander area has attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

III. Wisconsin's State Implementation Plan (SIP)

    EPA's proposed approval of Wisconsin's attainment SIP for the
Rhinelander area (86 FR 38643) included revised emission limits for
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml], which is the main SO2 source in the
Rhinelander area. In that action, EPA proposed to find that Wisconsin
had satisfied requirements for providing for attainment of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Rhinelander area. The proposed
SO2 SIP regulations for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] are contained
in Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Revision 15-DMM-128-R1.\3\
EPA will not finalize this action until the approval of Wisconsin's SIP
for the Rhinelander area is finalized. Wisconsin has shown that it
maintains an active enforcement program to ensure ongoing compliance
with these requirements.\4\ Wisconsin's new source review/prevention of
significant deterioration program will address emissions from potential
new sources in the area (79 FR 60064, October 6, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The portions of Air Pollution Control Construction Permit
Revision 15-DMM-128-R1 that EPA proposed to incorporate into the
Wisconsin SIP include the permit cover sheet, emissions limitations
for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] (Conditions A.3.a.(1)-(3)), compliance
demonstration (Conditions A.3.b.(1)-(3)), reference test methods,
recordkeeping and monitoring requirements (Conditions A.3.c.(1)-(5)
and A.3.c.(7)-(9)), and the effective date (Condition YYY.1.a.(1)).
    \4\ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) maintains
an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements.
The Bureau of Air Management houses an active statewide compliance
and enforcement team that works in all geographic regions of the
State. WDNR refers actions as necessary to the Wisconsin Department
of Justice with the involvement of WDNR. Wis. Stats. 285.83 and Wis.
Stats. 285.87 provide WDNR with the authority to enforce violations
and assess penalties, to ensure that required measures are
ultimately implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    For an area to be redesignated, the State must be able to
reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to emission
reductions that are permanent and enforceable. Wisconsin's 2016
attainment plan established SO2 emission limits for
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] boiler B26 through Administrative Order AM-15-01.
In 2018, these emission limits, in combination with the retirement of
four coal boilers and reduced coal sulfur content at Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml], resulted in an actual average decrease of 2.07 tons per
day (tpd) of SO2 (25 percent) from 2011 actual emissions. As
part of its 2021 revised attainment plan, Wisconsin submitted a more
stringent SO2 limit for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]. This limit
and the associated requirements are contained in a title I construction
permit revision (Air Pollution Control Construction Permit Revision 15-
DMM-128-R1), which will render them federally enforceable after the
permit compliance date of December 31, 2021. EPA included the revised
limits in the proposed approval of Wisconsin's SIP on July 22, 2021 (86
FR 38643). A redesignation to attainment of the Rhinelander area would
not be effective before December 31, 2021, when the permit is
enforceable.
    As shown in Table 2 of this document, the monitored design values
in the Rhinelander area at the time of its nonattainment designation
were above the NAAQS of 75 ppb. Subsequent monitoring data in the
Rhinelander area indicate that the 99th percentile ambient
SO2 levels dropped below the NAAQS after the imposition of
enforceable limits at Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]. EPA proposes to find that
the improvement in air quality in the Rhinelander area can be
attributed to permanent and enforceable emission reductions at
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml].

V. Maintenance Plan

    CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the nonattainment area is
redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the ten years following
the initial ten-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to ensure prompt correction of any future one-hour
violations.
    Specifically, the maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions inventory, maintenance
demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued attainment, and a
contingency plan. Wisconsin's July 28, 2021, redesignation request
contains its maintenance plan,

which Wisconsin has committed to review eight years after
redesignation.
    In its redesignation request, Wisconsin provided an emission
inventory which addresses the 2011 base year actual emissions of 2,440
tons per year (tpy) for the Rhinelander area. Wisconsin chose 2018 as
an attainment year in order to demonstrate actual emissions reductions
that have occurred in an attaining year. Total actual SO2
emissions in the Rhinelander area for the attainment year were 1,289
tpy. As Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] boiler B26 was not operational for part
of 2018, Wisconsin also included average daily emission values of 8.23
tpd in 2011 and 6.15 tpd in 2018. Wisconsin demonstrated a 25 percent
reduction in actual average daily emissions, which is more than
sufficient to attain the SO2 NAAQS in the Rhinelander area.
Wisconsin's projected Rhinelander area emissions for the maintenance
year of 2032 are 2,204 tpy, over 99 percent of which are projected from
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]. This quantity is 10 percent lower than actual
emissions in 2011. The projected emissions for 2032 are lower than the
SO2 potential-to-emit for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] of 2,710
tpy, based on the revised limits in Air Pollution Control Construction
Permit Revision 15-DMM-128-R1. The modeling analysis shows that the
area will continue to attain based on the potential-to-emit in the
revised permit and associated control requirements.
    Wisconsin's maintenance demonstration consists of the nonattainment
SIP air quality analysis showing that the emission reductions now in
effect in the Rhinelander area will provide for attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS. The permanent and enforceable SO2
emission reductions described above ensure that area emissions will be
equal to or less than the emission levels that were evaluated in the
air quality analysis, and Wisconsin's enforceable emission requirements
will ensure that the Rhinelander area SO2 emission limits
are met continuously.
    For continuing verification, Wisconsin has committed to track the
emissions and compliance status of the major facilities in the
Rhinelander area so that future emissions will not exceed the allowable
emissions-based attainment inventory. All major sources in Wisconsin
are required to submit annual emissions data, which the State uses to
update its emission inventories as required by the CAA.
    The requirement to submit contingency measures in accordance with
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA can be adequately addressed for
SO2 by the operation of a comprehensive enforcement program,
which can quickly identify and address sources that might be causing
exceedances of the NAAQS. Wisconsin's enforcement program is active and
capable of prompt action to remedy compliance issues. Wisconsin commits
to study SO2 emission trends and identify areas of concern
and potential additional measures and, if necessary, Wisconsin will
consider additional control measures that can be implemented quickly.
Wisconsin has the authority to expeditiously adopt, implement, and
enforce any subsequent emissions control measures deemed necessary to
correct any future SO2 violations. Wisconsin commits to
adopting and implementing such corrective actions as necessary to
address violations of the SO2 NAAQS. The public will have
the opportunity to participate in the contingency measure
implementation process. Based on the foregoing, EPA proposes to find
that Wisconsin has addressed the contingency measure requirement.
Further, EPA proposes to find that Wisconsin's maintenance plan
adequately addresses the five basic components necessary to maintain
the SO2 NAAQS in the Rhinelander nonattainment area.

VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section 110 and Part D

    Wisconsin has submitted information demonstrating that it meets all
of the SIP requirements of the CAA for the Rhinelander nonattainment
area. EPA approved most elements of Wisconsin's infrastructure SIP on
September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54725), revisions to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review programs
on October 6, 2014 (79 FR 60064), state board requirements on January
21, 2016 (81 FR 3334), and the remaining components on February 7, 2017
(82 FR 9515). These infrastructure SIP approvals confirm that
Wisconsin's SIP meets the applicable requirements of CAA section
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) to contain the basic program elements, such as
an active enforcement program and permitting program.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent sources in a State from significantly contributing to air
quality problems in another State. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain States to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a State are not linked with a nonattainment area's designation and
classification in that State. EPA believes that the requirements linked
with a nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The
transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to
apply to a State regardless of the designation of any one area in the
State. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport
requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.
    In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with
an area's SO2 attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated to
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The section 110 and part D
requirements that are linked with a particular area's designation and
classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing
policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final rulemakings, 61
FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR 24826 (May 7, 1997);
Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio final rulemaking, 61 FR 20458 (May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida final rule, 60 FR 62748 (December 7,
1995). See also the discussion of this issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio
ozone redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ozone redesignation (66 FR 50399, October
19, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 191 of the CAA requires Wisconsin to submit a part D SIP
for the Rhinelander nonattainment area by April 6, 2015. Wisconsin
submitted its part D SIP on January 22, 2016 and supplemented it on
July 18, 2016 and November 29, 2016. However, on March 23, 2021, EPA
partially disapproved Wisconsin's part D SIP, as submitted and
supplemented in 2016, for failure to comply with EPA's stack height
regulations. Consequently, Wisconsin submitted a revised plan to EPA on
March 29, 2021. The revised SIP included a demonstration of attainment
and a more stringent SO2 emission limit for Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]. EPA proposed to approve the revised Rhinelander
attainment plan on July 22, 2021 (86 FR 38643), and EPA will not
finalize this action until the attainment plan is approved and
effective. In the July 22, 2021, rulemaking, EPA proposed to conclude
that Wisconsin had satisfied the various requirements under CAA section
110 and part D for the Rhinelander SO2 nonattainment area.
EPA concluded that Wisconsin satisfied requirements for reasonably
available

control measures (required under section 173(c)(1)) and reasonable
further progress (required under section 173(c)(2)). That rulemaking
supplemented a previous action in which EPA concluded that Wisconsin
satisfied requirements for an attainment inventory of the
SO2 emissions from sources in the nonattainment area
(required under section 173(c)(3)).
    Wisconsin chose 2011 for its base year emissions inventory, as
comprehensive emissions data were available and updated that year,
which satisfies the 172(c)(3) requirements. In that year, Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml] was the main source in the nonattainment area.
    Table 3 of this document compares Wisconsin's SO2
emissions data for Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] for 2011 (the base
nonattainment year identified by Wisconsin), 2018 (the attainment year
identified by Wisconsin), and 2032 (the maintenance year identified by
Wisconsin). For each of these years, Wisconsin's submittal shows that
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] accounts for over 99 percent of the
SO2 emissions in the Rhinelander area.
    By providing actual emissions from Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml], the main
SO2 source, from a time period when the area was not meeting
the SO2 NAAQS, and from a time period when the area was
attaining the NAAQS, Wisconsin demonstrates a 25 percent reduction in
actual average daily SO2 emissions. Wisconsin's submittal
shows that actual average daily 2018 Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]
SO2 emissions were 75 percent of the actual emissions in
2011. Wisconsin also shows by modeling that Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]'s
compliance with its revised SO2 emission limit, which will
be federally enforceable beginning December 31, 2021, will result in
the area maintaining attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

                                              Table 3--Actual and Projected Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2011 Nonattainment year    2018 Attainment year        2011-2018 Change        2032 Maintenance year
                                     Type of              (actual)                  (actual)                  (actual)                 (projected)
        Affected source             reduction    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     (tpy)        (tpd)        (tpy)        (tpd)        (tpy)        (tpd)        (tpy)        (tpd)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml].........  Emission limits,        2,422         8.17      * 1,280         6.13       -1,142        -2.04        2,195         6.13
                                 unit shutdowns,
                                 fuel changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Annual emissions for 2018 are lower than the projected annual maintenance year emissions because Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml] boiler B26 was not operational
  from mid-May to mid-October 2018

    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability
that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. Based on
EPA's 2014 SO2 guidance, transportation conformity only
applies to SO2 SIPs if transportation-related emissions of
SO2 as a precursor are a significant contributor to a
PM2.5 nonattainment problem, or if the SIP has established
an approved or adequate budget for such emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment or maintenance strategy, neither of which apply to the
Rhinelander area. Nevertheless, EPA approved Wisconsin's transportation
conformity procedures on February 27, 2014 (79 FR 10995). EPA approved
Wisconsin's general conformity procedures on July 29, 1996 (61 FR
39329).
    Based on the above, EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has
satisfied the applicable requirements for the redesignation of the
Rhinelander nonattainment area under section 110 and part D of title I
of the CAA.

VII. What action is EPA taking?

    In accordance with Wisconsin's July 28, 2021, request, EPA is
proposing to redesignate the Rhinelander nonattainment area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The
redesignation will not be effective until EPA approves the Wisconsin
attainment plan for the Rhinelander area. EPA finds that Wisconsin has
demonstrated that the area is attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable SO2 emission reductions in the area. EPA is also
proposing to approve Wisconsin's maintenance plan, which is designed to
ensure that the area will continue to maintain the SO2
NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal
lands, nor impair the maintenance of SO2 national ambient
air quality standards on tribal lands.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: November 8, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2021-24915 Filed 11-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0918]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Sacramento
Century Challenge bicycle race. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation
period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. through 10 a.m. on
October 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0918, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge over the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway
is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 7 a.m. through 10 a.m. on October 7, 2017, to allow the community
to participate in the Sacramento Century Challenge bicycle race. This
temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No
objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels
able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at
anytime. In the event of an emergency the draw can open on signal if at
least one hour notice is given to the bridge operator. There are no
immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 27, 2017.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-21099 Filed 10-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47150-47152]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17164]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9948-45]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the
mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail
code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary.

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).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    PP 5F8379. EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0559. Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
penflufen, (1H-

Pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)phenyl]-5-fluoro-1,3-
dimethyl-) in or on beet, sugar, roots at 0.01 parts per million (ppm);
and beet, sugar, tops at 0.01 ppm. The high performance liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/
MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical penflufen. Contact:
RD.
    PP 6E8469. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286. Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014,
2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.626 for residues of the
fungicide, prothioconazole, in or on imported commodities in the
Sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 ppm. The LC/MS/MS analytical method is
used to measure and evaluate the chemical prothioconazole. Contact: RD.
    PP 6E8473. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0333. BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.513 for the residues of the insecticide
chlorfenapyr [4-bromo-2-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(ethoxymethyl)-
5(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrrole-3-carbonitrile] in or on tea at 70 ppm.
The analytical method is designated as M 2427, a gas chromatography/
electron capture detection (GC/ECD) method with a limit of quantitation
(LOQ) of 0.05 ppm. Contact: RD.
    PP 6E8480. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0342. IR-4, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201-W,
Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part
180.127 for residues of the insecticide piperonyl butoxide [(butyl
carbityl)(6-propyl piperonyl)ether], in or on fungi, edible, group 21
at 30 ppm. The analytical method consisting of high pressure LC/MS/MS
is used to measure and evaluate the chemical piperonyl butoxide.
Contact: RD.
    PP 6F8451. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325. SePRO Corporation, 11550 North
Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.420 for residues of the herbicide
fluridone in or on cotton, gin byproducts at 0.1 ppm. The enzyme-linked
immunosorbant assay (ELISA), high performance liquid chromatography
with ultraviolet detection (HLPC/UV), and liquid chromatography with
tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MSMS) is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical fluridone. Contact: RD.
    PP 6F8470. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0295. Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville
Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a tolerance in 40
CFR part 180.350 for residues of the herbicide, nitrapyrin [2-chloro-6-
(trichloromethyl) pyridine] and its metabolite, 6-chloropicolinic acid
(6-CPA), in or on nut, tree group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm and almond, hulls
at 0.07 ppm. Method 205G881A-1 determines residues of nitrapyrin by
extracting with deionized water and 1:1 (v/v) hexane:toluene. Extracts
are then concentrated and passed through a silica gel column before
being analyzed by gas chromatography with electron-impact mass
spectrometry detection. Method 205G881-B1 determines residues of 6-
chloropicolinic acid by extracting with aqueous 0.1 N sodium hydroxide.
Extracts are then acidified and cleaned up by C18 solid phase
extraction before being analyzed by liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectrometry detection. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances

    PP 5F8386. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0326. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., Suite
300, 2255 N. 44th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85008, requests to amend the
tolerance in the 40 CFR part 180.184 for residues of the herbicide
linuron in or on potatoes at 0.2 ppm by removing the regional
restrictions. The GC/MSD method is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical linuron. Contact: RD.
    PP 6E8472. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0314. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New
Jersey 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180.345 by increasing the
existing tolerance for the combined residues of the herbicide
ethofumesate, (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl
methanesulfonate) and its metabolites, 2-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-
dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate and 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-
2-oxo-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate both calculated as the parent
compound in or on beet, sugar, molasses from 0.5 to 2.5 parts per
million (ppm); beet, sugar, refined sugar from 0.2 to 1.0 ppm; beet,
sugar, roots from 0.3 to 1.5 ppm; and beet, sugar, tops from 4.0 to
30.0 ppm. Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry analysis
is the analytical method used to identify and measure chemical residues
of ethofumesate. Contact RD.
    PP IN-10858. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0121. Drexel Chemical Company, P.O.
Box 13327, Memphis, TN 38113-03227, requests to amend the tolerance in
40 CFR 180.469 for residues of dichlormid (CAS Reg. No. 37764-25-3),
when used as an inert ingredient (herbicide safener) in pesticide
formulations, to include tolerances at 0.05 ppm for all commodities for
which there are tolerances for the active ingredients metolachlor and
s-metolachlor (40 CFR 180.368). Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
(GC-MS) with nitrogen selective thermionic detection is used to measure
and evaluate the chemical dichlormid. Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemptions

    PP IN-10888. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0252. Bayer HealthCare, LLC, Animal
Health Division, P.O. Box 390 Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) in or on honey when used
as a pesticide inert ingredient (colorant) at a concentration of not
more than 0.1% by weight in pesticide formulations intended for varroa
mite control around bee hives. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-10925. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0330. Momentive Performance Materials,
260 Hudson River Rd., Waterford, NY 12188, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acrylic
acid, butyl acrylate, styrene copolymer with a minimum number-average
molecular weight (in amu) of 5,200 (CAS Reg. No. 25586-20-3) when used
as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960.
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerance Exemptions

    PP IN-10935. EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0283. OMC Ag Consulting, 828
Tanglewood Lane, East Lansing, MI 48823, on behalf of Vive Crop
Protection Inc., 700 Bay St., Suite 1000, Toronto, ON M5G 1Z6, Canada,
requests to amend an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of acrylic polymers composed of one or more of the following
monomers: Acrylic acid, butyl acrylate, butyl methacrylate,
carboxyethyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, ethyl methacrylate, hydroxybutyl
acrylate, hydroxybutyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate,
hydroxyethyl methacrylate, hydroxypropyl acrylate, hydroxypropyl
methacrylate, isobutyl methacrylate, lauryl methacrylate, methacrylic
acid, methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate and stearyl methacrylate;
with none and/or one or more of the following

monomers: Acrylamide, diethyl maleate, dioctyl maleate, maleic acid,
maleic anhydride, monoethyl maleate, monooctyl maleate, N-methyl
acrylamide, N,N-dimethyl acrylamide, N-octylacrylamide; and their
corresponding ammonium, isopropylamine, monoethanolamine, potassium,
sodium triethylamine, and/or triethanolamine salts; the resulting
polymer having a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu),
1,200 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960 to include the monomers lauryl
acrylate and acrylamidopropyl methyl sulfonic acid. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because the request is for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-17164 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P