[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41416-41421]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16453]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0242; FRL-8725-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Las Vegas Valley; Second 10-Year
Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). On September
27, 2010, the EPA redesignated the Las Vegas Valley area from
nonattainment to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard'') and approved the
State's CO maintenance plan ensuring the area would maintain the NAAQS
for ten years through 2020. On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted to the EPA
a second 10-year limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the Las Vegas
Valley area for the CO NAAQS. The LMP addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS for a second 10-year period ending in 2030.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0166 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The 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. 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). 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

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Szeto, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Nevada's SIP Submittal
III. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's SIP Submittal
    A. Procedural Requirements
    B. LMP Requirements
IV. Transportation Conformity
V. Proposed Action and Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is generally
emitted from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels. The
largest sources of CO in ambient environments are cars, trucks, and
other vehicles and machineries that burn fossil fuels. Inhalation of CO
can impair oxygen delivery to vital organs and tissues. Those with pre-
existing heart disease or other conditions that make one unable to
compensate for tissue hypoxia are particularly vulnerable to the
cardiovascular effects of ambient CO, especially during exercise or
when under increased stress. At high levels, CO exposure can also lead
to dizziness, confusion, and unconsciousness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 54294 (August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1971 the EPA established primary and secondary NAAQS for CO at 9
parts per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour period, and at 35 ppm,
averaged over a 1-hour period.\2\ On September 13, 1985, the EPA
retained the primary standards without revision and revoked the
secondary standards.\3\ The EPA retained the primary standards without
revision again in both 1994 \4\ and 2011.\5\ The EPA retained the
primary standards based on scientific evidence demonstrating that the
existing standards are requisite to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. The EPA also found that analysis of both the
non-climate and climate welfare effects of CO are insufficient to
provide support for a secondary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971).
    \3\ 50 FR 37484 (September 13, 1985).
    \4\ 59 FR 38906 (August 1, 1994).
    \5\ 75 FR 54194 (August 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
Amendments of 1990, the EPA designated the Las Vegas Valley area as a
``Moderate'' nonattainment area.\6\ The area was reclassified as a
``Serious'' nonattainment area on October 2, 1997, when the EPA
determined the area had not attained the standard after receiving a
one-year extension of the 1995 attainment date.\7\ Under the CAA,
states are required to adopt and submit SIPs to attain the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas within their state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
    \7\ 62 FR 51604 (October 2, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CAA section 175A, one of the criteria for an area to be
redesignated from nonattainment to attainment is the approval of a
maintenance plan. The maintenance plan must, among other requirements,
ensure control measures are in place such that the area will continue
to maintain the standard for the period extending 10 years after
redesignation, and include contingency provisions to assure that
violations of the NAAQS will be promptly remedied.
    In 1994, the EPA set forth new guidelines establishing a
streamlined process for certain nonattainment areas to meet CAA section
175A maintenance plan requirements.\8\ This process provides for
maintenance by demonstrating that future violations of the standard are
unlikely to occur because the area's design values \9\ are well below
the NAAQS, and based on the historical stability of the area's air
quality. A design value is considered well below the NAAQS when it is
less than or equal to 85 percent of the standard. For CO specifically,
this would be 85 percent of the 9 ppm 8-hour CO standard, or 7.65 ppm.
The EPA refers to this streamlined demonstration as a limited
maintenance plan (LMP). Although the LMP guidelines originally
addressed the ozone NAAQS, the EPA extended the provisions to apply to
other pollutants and issued guidance specific for CO nonattainment
areas.\10\ The LMP must be submitted as a SIP revision and should
include an attainment emissions inventory, maintenance demonstration,
provisions for the continued operation of the ambient air quality
monitoring network for verification of continued attainment, a
contingency plan in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS, and
conformity determination provisions.11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Memorandum dated November 16, 1994, from Sally L Shaver,
Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards Divisions (MD-15) to
Air Branch Directors, Regions I-X, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option
for Nonclassifiable Ozone Nonattainment Areas.''
    \9\ A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality
status of a certain pollutant for a given location relative to its
NAAQS.
    \10\ Memorandum dated October 6, 1995, from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15) to Air Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' (``Paisie Memo'').
    \11\ Id. at 3-5.
    \12\ Memorandum dated September 4, 1992, from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15), Regional Air
Division Directors, Regions I-X, ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2010, the EPA approved the ``Carbon Monoxide
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, Las Vegas Valley
Nonattainment Area, Clark County, Nevada (September 2008)'' for the Las
Vegas Valley area and redesignated the area to attainment.\13\ Under
CAA section 175A, at the end of the eighth year after the effective
date of redesignation, the state must submit a second maintenance plan
to ensure ongoing maintenance of the standard for an additional ten
years. On June 18, 2019, the State of Nevada submitted the ``Second 10-
Year Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan: Las Vegas Valley
Maintenance Area, Clark County, Nevada (May 2019)'' (``2019 LMP'') for
the Las Vegas Valley area to fulfill the second maintenance plan
requirement in CAA section 175A.\14\ The 2019 LMP includes a
demonstration that the area is expected to remain in attainment of the
CO NAAQS through the last year of the second 10-year maintenance
period, that is, through the remainder of the area's full 20-year
maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 75 FR 59090 (September 27, 2010).
    \14\ Letter of submittal dated June 13, 2019, from Greg Lovato,
Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, to
Elizabeth Adams, Air Division Director, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX (submitted electronically June 18,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Nevada's SIP Submittal

    On June 18, 2019, NDEP submitted the 2019 LMP to the EPA as a
revision to the Nevada SIP. The submittal includes the LMP and
appendices. Appendices to the plan include air quality data, emissions
inventory information, air quality monitoring information, and
documentation of the public review process.

III. The EPA's Evaluation of Nevada's SIP Submittal

A. Procedural Requirements

    Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA require that a reasonable
notice and public hearing occur before revisions to a SIP can be
adopted by the state. Specifically, under 40 CFR part 51, subpart F,
the EPA requires that

there must be a publication of a notice by prominent advertisement in
the relevant geographic area of the proposed SIP revision, a public
comment period of at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public
hearing.
    The Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability
(CCDES) \15\ published a notice of a 30-day comment period and notice
of a public hearing for the 2019 LMP on the Clark County website, and
the department's website, Twitter, and Facebook pages. An email notice
was distributed to officials in relevant cities as well as in state and
local-level departments, districts, authorities, commissions, and
associations. The CCDES held a public comment period from February 15,
2019 to March 18, 2019. No formal comments were submitted. On May 7,
2019, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners held a public
hearing on the 2019 LMP. No formal comments were submitted during this
hearing. The CCDES then forwarded the 2019 LMP to the State of Nevada
and the State submitted the plan to the EPA as a revision to the Nevada
SIP. The process followed by the CCDES adheres with procedural
requirements for SIP revisions outlined under CAA section 110 and the
EPA's implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Formerly Clark County Department of Air Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. LMP Requirements

    The EPA reviewed the 2019 LMP that addresses maintenance of the CO
NAAQS within the Las Vegas Valley area through the end of the 20-year
period following the area's redesignation, as required under CAA
section 175A(b).
1. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. For
CO, the inventory should represent the typical winter day emissions of
CO for the time period associated with the monitoring data showing
attainment.\16\ The 2019 LMP includes a CO attainment inventory for the
Las Vegas Valley area that reflects typical winter weekday emissions in
2017. Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for the year
contained in the maintenance plan. Under an LMP, states are not
required to project emissions over the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Paisie Memo, 3.

   Table 1--2017 Average Winter Weekday CO Emissions for the Las Vegas
                               Valley Area
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point..........................................................     0.93
Nonpoint.......................................................    43.48
Aviation.......................................................    12.53
Onroad Mobile..................................................   217.18
Nonroad Mobile.................................................   114.35
                                                                --------
    Total......................................................   448.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CCDES derived point source emissions using semiannual compliance
reports submitted to the agency by stationary sources located in the
Las Vegas Valley area. These reports are required by CCDES' federally-
approved CAA title V operating permits program and include monthly
reporting data for the facility.\17\ CCDES derived the nonpoint source
emissions from the EPA's 2016 modeling platform (alpha version) and
used 2016 as a surrogate for 2017 because the 2017 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for nonpoint sources was not available at the time
CCDES developed the 2019 LMP. CCDES determined that the differences
between 2016 and 2017 would be insignificant. Aviation operation data
for 2014 and 2017 were obtained from the Federal Aviation
Administration's air traffic activity system and terminal area forecast
databases and used in conjunction with the 2014 NEI to estimate
aviation CO emissions for 2017. Onroad and nonroad mobile source data
were generated using the latest release of the EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model version MOVES2014b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CCDES used reporting data for the CO season months January,
February, and December 2017 to develop emissions for those months
and convert to daily emissions. See 2019 LMP, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the methods, models, and assumptions used by
CCDES to develop the CO estimates, we find that the 2019 LMP for the
Las Vegas Valley CO maintenance area includes a comprehensive, accurate
inventory of CO emissions in the year 2017, and conclude that the
plan's inventories are acceptable for the purposes of a subsequent
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Consistent with prior EPA guidance, if a maintenance area
demonstrates a maximum 8-hour CO design value of less than or equal to
85 percent of the CO NAAQS, or 7.65 ppm, for eight consecutive
quarters, then the EPA considers the area to have met the maintenance
plan demonstration requirement and that the area will maintain the
NAAQS for the second 10-year maintenance period.\18\ Such a
demonstration also assumes continued applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) requirements,\19\ continued
implementation of any existing control measures in the SIP, and that
federal measures will remain in place through the end of the second 10-
year maintenance period. The EPA does not require areas using the LMP
option to project emissions over the maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Paisie Memo, 3.
    \19\ PSD applies to new major sources or major modifications at
existing sources for pollutants where the area of the source's
location is designated by the EPA as attainment or unclassifiable
with the NAAQS. Its requirements include, but are not limited to,
the following: Installation of best available control technology, an
air quality analysis, an additional impact analysis, and public
involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 presents the design values for the Las Vegas Valley area
over the 2012-2020 period. As shown in Table 2, historically, the area
has consistently been well below 85 percent of the NAAQS. Because the
CO design values in the Las Vegas Valley area are below the LMP
threshold over the most recent eight quarters, the EPA finds that the
State has adequately demonstrated that the area will continue to
maintain the CO NAAQS over the second 10-year maintenance period and in
the future.

                                   Table 2--Current and Historical CO Design Values (DV) for the Las Vegas Valley Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Highest second maximum 8-hour CO value  (ppm)
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------    DV
                     Year                        Jerome Mack     J.D. Smith    Rancho & Teddy   Sunrise Acres   (ppm)       Is DV less than 7.65 ppm?
                                                 (320030540)     (320032002)     (320031501)     (320030540)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.........................................             2.8             2.1  ..............             3.1      3.1  Yes.
2013.........................................             2.8             2.4  ..............             3.1      3.1  Yes.

2014.........................................             2.7             2.4  ..............             2.9      2.9  Yes.
2015.........................................             2.7             2.2  ..............             2.8      2.8  Yes.
2016.........................................             2.3               2  ..............             2.6      2.6  Yes.
2017.........................................            2.35               2         \c\ 1.5             2.8      2.8  Yes.
2018.........................................             2.5         \b\ 1.9             1.5             2.8      2.8  Yes.
2019.........................................             2.3  ..............             1.4             2.8      2.8  Yes.
2020 \a\.....................................             2.1  ..............             1.4             2.4      2.4  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: EPA, Air Quality System, Design Value Report, March 16, 2021.
\a\ CO design values have no annual completeness requirement.
\b\ The J.D. Smith station was permanently shut down with the EPA's approval on December 31, 2017, due to measurement challenges posed by siting
  obstructions.
\c\ The Rancho & Teddy station opened in 2015 and began monitoring CO in January 2017.

3. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    The EPA periodically reviews the CO monitoring network operated and
maintained by CCDES in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network is
consistent with the Clark County ambient air monitoring network plan
(AMNP) submitted annually to the EPA after a public notification and
comment process. The EPA has reviewed and approved the AMNP every year
for the past three years from 2018-2020. The EPA is also required to
conduct technical systems audits (TSA) every three years to ensure
quality assurance of monitoring organizations.\20\ The most recent TSA
for CCDES was in 2018, and the EPA found that CCDES's air monitoring
program meets EPA's requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 58 Appendix A, section 2.5.
    \21\ Letter dated August 23, 2018 from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division Region IX, to Marci Henson, Director,
Clark County Department of Air Quality with attached ``Technical
Systems Audit of the Ambient Air Monitoring Program: Clark County
Department of Air Quality October 23-25, 2017 and January 16-18,
2018.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operations of an EPA-approved monitoring network in accordance with 40
CFR part 58. The CCDES's network in the Las Vegas Valley area has been
approved by the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.\22\ Furthermore,
the CCDES has committed to continue to operate an air quality
monitoring network in the Las Vegas Valley area in accordance with the
EPA requirements to verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS.\23\
For the reasons stated in this section of the notice, we find Clark
County's monitoring network adequate to verify continued attainment of
the CO NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For further details, see CCDES's 2020 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP), the EPA's approval letter for the 2020, 2019
and 2018 AMNP, as well as the EPA's Clark County 2018 TSA report, in
the docket for this action.
    \23\ See 2019 LMP, Section 3.3, ``Monitoring Network/
Verification of Continued Attainment,'' 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent
future violations of the NAAQS or promptly remediate any NAAQS
violations that might occur during the maintenance period. These
contingency provisions need not be fully adopted regulations at the
time of the redesignation. However, the contingency plan is an
enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that contingency measures
are adopted quickly once the contingency plan is triggered. The
contingency plan should also identify the measures to be expeditiously
adopted and provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation. The state is also required to identify triggers that
will be used to determine when contingency measures will need to be
implemented.
    In the 2019 LMP, the CCDES retains the reduced Reid vapor pressure
(RVP) gasoline program contingency measure from its first CO
maintenance plan as a contingency measure. The RVP gasoline program
relaxed the RVP from wintertime fuels sold in Clark County from 9.0
pounds per square inch (psi) to 13.5 psi, thereby increasing fuel
volatility and therefore fuel-related emissions. The EPA approved this
measure, finding that relaxation of RVP would not interfere with
maintenance of the CO standard in the area.\24\ The RVP gasoline
program contingency measure would reinstate the prior, lower RVP level.
That is, if future CO levels trigger contingency measures, the CCDES
will seek reinstatement and tightening of the RVP standard back to 9.0
psi. This contingency measure would be triggered by a verified second
exceedance over 9 ppm during the winter season (October 1 through March
31) within a consecutive two-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 75 FR 59090.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in the
2019 LMP satisfy the contingency measure requirements of CAA section
175A for the second 10-year maintenance plan period.

IV. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The EPA's conformity rule at 40
CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects
conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining conformity. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the regional transportation plan
(RTP) and the transportation improvement plan (TIP) are consistent with
the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB or ``budget'') contained in
the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan.\25\ A budget is
defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied
upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or
maintain compliance with the

NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124.
    \26\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193-62196,
November 24, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the conformity rule, areas submitting an LMP for the second
10-year maintenance plan may demonstrate conformity without a regional
emissions analysis as outlined in 40 CFR 93.109(e). When the EPA
approves an LMP, the EPA is concluding that a budget may be treated as
essentially not constraining for the length of the maintenance period.
Areas that qualify for an LMP may demonstrate conformity without a
regional emissions analysis because it is unreasonable to expect that
such an area will experience so much growth in the 10-year period of
the LMP that a violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\27\ All actions
that would require transportation conformity determinations for the Las
Vegas Valley area under the transportation conformity rule provisions
would be considered to have already satisfied the regional emissions
analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR 93.118 as a result
of our final approval of the 2019 LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Paisie Memo, 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, approval of
the 2019 LMP would not relieve transportation agencies of certain
determinations still required for transportation plans, programs, and
projects. Specifically, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects must
still demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained,\28\ meet the
criteria for consultation,\29\ and provide for timely implementation of
transportation control measures from the applicable implementation
plan.\30\ Conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must also be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects demonstrated in
accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. For
projects to be approved they must be listed in a currently conforming
RTP and TIP.\31\ In addition, projects in LMP areas are required to
meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot analyses to satisfy
``project level'' conformity determinations,\32\ which must also
incorporate the latest planning assumptions and models available.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 40 CFR 93.108.
    \29\ 40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112.
    \30\ 40 CFR 93.113.
    \31\ 40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115.
    \32\ 40 CFR 93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123.
    \33\ 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111, respectively. See 40 CFR
93.109(b), Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the area should monitor CO concentrations at or above the
limited maintenance eligibility criteria, or 7.65 ppm, then that
maintenance area would no longer qualify for a LMP and would revert to
a full maintenance plan. In this event, the LMP would remain applicable
for conformity purposes only until the full maintenance plan is
submitted and the EPA has either found its motor vehicle emissions
budget adequate for conformity purposes or approves the full
maintenance plan SIP revision. At that time regional emissions analyses
would resume as a transportation conformity criterion.
    The EPA posted Las Vegas Valley's 2019 LMP for CO on its adequacy
review website on June 23, 2021.\34\ The EPA will accept comments from
the public for up to 30 days after the LMP has been posted on the
website. The EPA will consider the comments and then may elect to
proceed with finding the 2019 LMP adequate for transportation
conformity purposes either as part of the SIP's final approval or in a
separate notice of adequacy. The EPA's adequacy review process is
described in 40 CFR part 93.118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/adequacy-review-state-implementation-plan-sip-submissions-conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If finalized, our approval of the 2019 LMP would effectively affirm
our adequacy finding such that no regional emissions analysis for
future transportation CO conformity determinations are required for the
2019 LMP period and beyond. The other transportation conformity
requirements listed above would continue to apply.
    In addition to transportation conformity, approval of the 2019 LMP
would have implications for general conformity.\35\ Federal actions
subject to general conformity would be presumed to conform under a
limited maintenance plan as actions in this area will automatically
satisfy the budget test of 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), as described in
in an EPA memorandum entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' on limited maintenance plans
for CO nonattainment areas.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 40 CFR part 93 Subpart B.
    \36\ Paisie Memo, 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is proposing to approve
the 2019 LMP as a revision to the Nevada SIP because we find that it
satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.
    The 2019 LMP adequately demonstrates maintenance of the CONAAQS
well below the standard through documentation of monitoring data
showing the historical CO design values of the area. It also satisfies
the other core provisions of an LMP: It has an accurate and
comprehensive emissions inventory representing attainment, a
contingency plan, and a commitment to continue operation of an
acceptable ambient monitoring network to verify continued attainment
over the second 10-year period. We find the 2019 LMP to be sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Las Vegas Valley area
over the second 10-year maintenance period (through 2030) and thereby
satisfy the requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b).
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this notice. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days and will consider these comments before taking
final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; 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, the 2019 LMP is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The Las Vegas Tribe of
Paiute Indians has areas of Indian country located in the Las Vegas
Valley CO maintenance area. In those areas of Indian country, the 2019
LMP does not apply, and therefore, this proposed action does not have
tribal implications and would not, if approved, impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon Monoxide, Pollution.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-16453 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51292-51293]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4239-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Kentucky; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4239-DR), dated August
12, 2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: August 12, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 12, 2015, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky resulting from severe storms, tornadoes,
straight-line winds, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the
period of July 11-20, 2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will
be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds
provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of FEMA is appointed to
act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Carter, Johnson, Rowan, and Trimble Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Bracken, Breathitt, Carroll, Carter, Clay, Cumberland, Elliott,
Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Henry, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Lawrence,
Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, Magoffin, Menifee, Montgomery,
Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan,
Spencer, Trimble, Washington, and Wolfe Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Kentucky are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora

Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal
Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046,
Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing
Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared
Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-20889 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53047-53051]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0586; FRL-9393-8]

Halosulfuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
halosulfuron-methyl in or on artichoke and caneberry subgroup 13-07A.
The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 28, 2013. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 28, 2013,
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-2012-0586, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 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-2012-0586 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
October 28, 2013. 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-2012-0586, 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 September 28, 2012 (77 FR 59578) (FRL-
9364-6), 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
2E8050) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, 500 College Rd. East, Suite
201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.479
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]
carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on artichoke and
caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan
Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

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 halosulfuron-methyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with halosulfuron-
methyl follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. With repeated dosing, halosulfuron-methyl produces non-
specific effects, which are frequently characterized by reduced body
weight/body weight gain in the test animals. In the prenatal
developmental toxicity study in rats, increases in resorptions, soft
tissue (dilation of the lateral ventricles) and skeletal variations,
and decreases in body weights were seen in the fetuses compared to
clinical signs and decreases in body weights and food consumption in
the maternal animals at a similar dose level. In the rabbit
developmental toxicity study, increases in resorptions and post-
implantation losses and decrease in mean litter size were seen in the
presence of decreases in body weight and food consumption in maternal
animals were observed. However, a clear no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) for these effects was established in both rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies. Halosulfuron-methyl did not produce
reproductive effects. No neurotoxic effects were observed in the acute
or subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
    Halosulfuron-methyl is classified as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' It is negative for mutagenicity in a battery
of genotoxicity studies.
    Although there is no immunotoxicity study for halosulfuron-methyl,
the available data indicate that halosulfuron-methyl is unlikely to be
an immuno toxicant. EPA is currently reviewing a waiver request for
these data.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl as well as the NOAEL and
Lowest Observed-Adversed-Effective-Level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document:
``Halosulfuron-Methyl: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New
Uses on Artichoke and Caneberry (Crop subgroup 13-07A),'' dated March
25, 2013, pp. 30-34, docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0586-0004.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for halosulfuron-methyl
used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. of the final
rule published in the Federal Register of December 3, 2012 (77 FR
71555) (FRL-9370-6).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to halosulfuron-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing halosulfuron-methyl
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.479. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
halosulfuron-methyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. There was no indication of
an adverse effect attributable to a single dose for the general U.S.
population including infants and children. Therefore, an acute dietary
assessment was not conducted for the U.S. general population. However,
such effects were identified for females 13-49 years old

for halosulfuron-methyl. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model--Food Consumption Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16), which incorporates consumption information from
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA);
2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined
assessment that assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), dietary
exposure evaluation model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors, and
tolerance-level residues for all existing and proposed uses.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16 which incorporates
consumption information from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008. As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined assessment that
assumed 100 PCT, DEEM 7.81 default processing factors, and tolerance-
level residues for all existing and proposed uses.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that halosulfuron methyl does not pose a cancer risk to
humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
halosulfuron-methyl. Tolerance level residues and100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of halosulfuron-methyl. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 and Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, respectively, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of halosulfuron-methyl for acute exposures
are estimated to be 59.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
0.065 ppb for ground water.
    For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments EDWC's are
estimated to be 59.2 ppb for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For both the acute and chronic
dietary risk assessments, the water concentration value of 59.2 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Residential turf use. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Residential handler short-term (1-30 days) dermal and inhalation
exposures, and residential post-application short-term dermal and
incidental oral (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and soil ingestion)
exposures are expected from activities associated with the existing
uses. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the
intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found halosulfuron-methyl to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and halosulfuron-methyl does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
halosulfuron-methyl does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. As discussed in Unit III.A., there was no quantitative
evidence for increased susceptibility following prenatal and/or
postnatal exposure. However, there was qualitative evidence for
increased susceptibility of fetuses in the rat and rabbit developmental
studies. In the rat study, increases in resorptions, soft tissue
(dilation of the lateral ventricles) and skeletal variations, and
decreases in body weights were seen in the fetuses compared to clinical
signs and decreases in body weights and food consumption in the
maternal animals. In the rabbit study, increases in resorptions and
post-implantation losses and decrease in mean litter size was seen in
the presence of decreases in body weight and food consumption in
maternal animals. Thus, in both species, the developmental effect was
considered to be qualitatively more severe than maternal effects (i.e.,
qualitative evidence for susceptibility). Nevertheless, the degree of
concern for these effects is low, and there are no residual
uncertainties for prenatal toxicity in both rats and rabbits for the
following reasons:
    i. In both studies, there are clear NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental
and maternal toxicities.
    ii. Developmental effects were seen in the presence of maternal
toxicity.
    iii. The effects were only seen at the high dose.
    iv. In rats, developmental effects were seen at a dose which
approached the limit-dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of

infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were
reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl is complete except
for an immunotoxicity study. In the absence of specific immunotoxicity
studies, EPA has evaluated the available halosulfuron-methyl toxicity
data to determine whether an additional uncertainty factor is needed to
account or potential immunotoxicity. The toxicology database for
halosulfuron-methyl does not show any evidence of biologically relevant
effects on the immune system following exposure to this chemical. The
overall weight-of-evidence suggests that this chemical does not
directly target the immune system. Based on these considerations, EPA
does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity testing will result in
a point of departure lower than those already selected for
halosulfuron-methyl risk assessment, and an additional database
uncertainty factor is not needed to account for the lack of this study.
    ii. There is no indication that halosulfuron-methyl is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats and
rabbits, as discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are no residual
uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and the degree of
concern for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to halosulfuron-methyl in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
halosulfuron-methyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to halosulfuron-methyl will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13-49
years, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
halosulfuron-methyl from food and water will utilize 5.5% of the cPAD
for all children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Chronic residential exposure to residues of
halosulfuron-methyl is not expected. Therefore, the chronic aggregate
risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure estimate.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Halosulfuron-
methyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to halosulfuron-methyl.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,800 for adults
and 840 for children. Residential exposure for use in the aggregate
assessment of adults and children 1 to <2 years old reflects the
combined post-application dermal plus hand-to-mouth exposures from turf
treated with liquid applications of halosulfuron-methyl. Because EPA's
level of concern for halosulfuron-methyl is a MOE of 100 or below,
these estimates of aggregate risk do not exceed the Agency's level of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
halosulfuron-methyl is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure pathway. Because there
is no intermediate-term residential exposure, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure
estimate. Chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the
appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the
equivalent POD value used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further
assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, halosulfuron-methyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to halosulfuron-methyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate analytical method is available for enforcement of
tolerances for halosulfuron-methyl residues in plants. The gas
chromatography (GC) method quantifies halosulfuron-methyl as its
rearrangement ester (RRE; 1-H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid, 3-chloro-5-
[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]-1-methyl, methyl ester) using
thermionic-specific detection (TSD, nitrogen specific). For
confirmation, the RRE can be determined by gas chromatography mass
spectroscopic detection (GC/MS).
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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. There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of
halosulfuron-methyl in/on any commodity.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide
halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino]
carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities
artichoke at 0.05 ppm and caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

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 14, 2013.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.479, add alphabetically the following commodities to
the table in paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.479  Halosulfuron-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Artichoke...................................................        0.05

                                * * * * *
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A...................................        0.05

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-20906 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73065]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-463-000]

San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 22, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 2, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28763 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 12/1/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan with Georgia Public Service Commission

SUMMARY:
REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN to the Georgia Public Service
Commission on August 20, 2014.  The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was
proposed on June 2, 2014.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
Beverly Banister/EPA R4
Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA R4
Todd Rinck/EPA R4
Ken Mitchell/EPA R4
Keith Goff/EPA R4
Reid Harvey/EPA OAP
Matt Clouse/EPA OAP
Beth Conlin/EPA OAP

External Stakeholders
Bubba McDonald/GA PSC
Doug Everett/GA PSC
Sheree Kernizan/GA PSC
Nick Cooper/GA PSC
Additional PSC staff
Shane Owl-Greason/Georgia Solar Utilities

ATTACHMENTS


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 245 (Monday, December 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73205-73206]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1021; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment and Removal of Air Traffic Service (ATS)
Routes; Eastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend three jet routes and remove one
jet route in the eastern United States. This action is associated with
the decommissioning of the Atlanta VHF Omnidirectional Range and
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) system in support of the VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) to
improve the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) and reduce
dependency on ground-based navigational systems.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1021; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-9 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1021; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-9) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1021; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-9.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during

normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center,
Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College
Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend three
and remove one jet routes in the eastern United States. This action is
associated with the planned decommissioning of the Atlanta VORTAC and
the VOR MON program by amending and removing certain jet route segments
that are being replaced by area navigation routing. Additionally, the
proposed jet route changes would reduce aeronautical chart clutter by
removing unneeded route segments.
    The proposed route changes are as follows:
    J-4: J-4 currently extends between the Los Angeles, CA, (LAX)
VORTAC, and the Colliers, SC, (IRQ) VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove
the latter segment from the Meridian, MS, (MEI) VORTAC to the Colliers
VORTAC. As proposed, the amendment route would extend between the Los
Angeles, CA, (LAX) VORTAC and the Magnolia, MS, (MHZ) VORTAC.
    J-45: J-45 currently extends between the Atlanta, GA, VORTAC, and
the Aberdeen, SD, (ABR) VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The
FAA proposes to remove the Atlanta, GA, (ATL) VORTAC in the initial
segment. As proposed, the amendment route would extend between the
Nashville, TN, (BNA) VORTAC, and the Aberdeen, SD, (ABR) VOR/DME.
    J-89: J-89 currently extends between the Atlanta, GA, VORTAC, and
the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, (YWG) VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the
Atlanta, GA, (ATL) VORTAC in the initial segment. As proposed, the
amendment route would extend between the Louisville, KY, (IIU) VORTAC,
and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, (YWG) VORTAC. The portion within Canada
is excluded.
    J-239: J-239 currently extends between the Atlanta, GA, (ATL)
VORTAC and the Meridian, MS, (MEI) VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove
the entire route.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F
dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet routes listed in this
document would be subsequently amended in, or removed, respectively,
from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-4 [Amended]

    From Los Angeles, CA, via INT Los Angeles 083[deg] and
Twentynine Palms, CA, 269[deg] radials; Twentynine Palms; Parker,
CA; Buckeye, AZ; San Simon, AZ; Newman, TX; Wink, TX; Abilene, TX;
Ranger, TX; Belcher, LA; to Magnolia, MS.
* * * * *

J-45 [Amended]

    From Nashville, TN; St Louis, MO; Kirksville, MO; Des Moines,
IA; Sioux Falls, SD; to Aberdeen, SD.
* * * * *

J-89 [Amended]

    From Louisville, KY; Boiler, IN; Northbrook, IL; Badger, WI;
Duluth, MN; to Winnipeg, MB, Canada. The portion within Canada is
excluded.
* * * * *

J-239 [Removed]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2021.
Margaret C. Flategraff,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-27831 Filed 12-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P