            2014 Compliance Recertification Application (CRA-2014)
       Compliance Application Review Document (CARD for Section 194.32)
                       Scope of Performance Assessments

32.0  Background

      Performance assessment (PA) is a process that assesses the likelihood that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) will meet the release limits specified by 40 CFR 191.13 for 10,000 years after disposal.  The PA process must consider both natural and man-made processes and events which have an effect on this disposal system.

      Section 194.32 requires that the PA include the effects of excavation mining, drilling, fluid injection and future development of leases.  The PA also must include the effects of current activities such as secondary oil recovery methods (water flooding), disposal of natural brine, solution mining to extract brine, etc., in the vicinity of the repository.  Section 194.32 requires identification of all processes, events, or sequences, and combinations of processes and events that may occur during the regulatory time frame that may affect the repository.  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) must document why any events or processes, or sequences are not included in the PA.

32.1  Requirements (194.32)

            (a)"Performance assessments shall consider natural processes and events, mining, deep drilling, and shallow drilling that may affect the disposal system during the regulatory time frame."

	(b) "Assessments of mining effects may be limited to changes in the hydraulic conductivity of the hydrogeologic units of the disposal system from excavation mining for natural resources.  Mining shall be assumed to occur with a one in 100 probability in each century of the regulatory time frame.  PAs shall assume that mineral deposits of those resources, similar in quality and type to those resources currently extracted from the Delaware Basin, will be completely removed from the controlled area during the century in which such mining is randomly calculated to occur.  Complete removal of such mineral resources shall be assumed to occur only once during the regulatory time frame."

	(c) "Performance assessments shall include an analysis of the effects on the disposal system of any activities that occur in the vicinity of the disposal system prior to disposal and are expected to occur in the vicinity of the disposal system soon after disposal.  Such activities shall include, but shall not be limited to, existing boreholes and the development of any existing leases that can be reasonably expected to be developed in the near future, including boreholes and leases that may be used for fluid injection activities."

	(d) "Performance assessments need not consider processes and events that have less than one chance in 10,000 of occurring over 10,000 years."

	(e) "Any compliance application(s) shall include information which:

		(1) Identifies all potential processes, events or sequences and 				combinations of processes and events that may occur during the regulatory 			time frame and may affect the disposal system."

		(2) Identifies the processes, events or sequences and combinations of 			processes and events included in performance assessments."

		(3)  Documents why any processes, events or sequences and combinations 			of processes and events identified pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this 			section were not included in performance assessment results provided in 			any compliance application."

32.2  1998 Certification Decision

194.32(a)

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) expected the Compliance Certification Application (CCA) to contain a comprehensive and complete features, events and processes (FEPs) source list.

      DOE presented a discussion of the screening process for FEPs in CCA Chapter 6.2.  DOE identified approximately 237 FEPs, divided into three major categories:  natural, waste - and repository-induced, and human-initiated.  Of particular importance to the performance of the disposal system were those FEPs dealing with mining, deep drilling, and shallow drilling.  The CCA and supporting documents illustrated the process used by DOE to select the features, events and processes (FEPs) and subsequent scenarios relevant to PA.  DOE's methodology for demonstrating compliance with Section 194.32(a) was based on the general requirements for FEP and scenario identification stated in the Section 194.32(e).  These requirements include the following:

 Identifying FEPs relevant to the WIPP.
            2)  Classifying FEPs.
            3)  Screening FEPs.
            4)  Combining FEPs to form scenarios.
            5)  Screening scenarios
            6)  Selecting scenarios for implementation in the PA.

      EPA evaluated the adequacy of the natural events and processes appropriate to the disposal system, and how these were considered in the PA.  EPA also evaluated DOE's consideration of mining and drilling in the PA.  EPA performed a critical review of each step of the DOE FEP selection process in the CCA, including: identification and listing of the potentially disruptive FEPs; screening of these FEPs; combination of FEPs to form scenarios, screening of scenarios, and the final formation of scenarios formulated for use in the CCA PA.

194.32 (b)

      EPA expected the CCA to discuss how mining was incorporated into the performance assessment.  This discussion included information on mining rates and probabilities, the application of institutional controls, hydraulic conductivity variations as a result of mining, and the extent of mineable reserves.  DOE identified potash as the only natural resource currently being mined near the WIPP.   DOE used the EPA-specified frequency of mining and probability guidance (CAG p. 43-44) in considering changes in hydraulic conductivity up to 1000 times the base hydraulic conductivity of the Culebra.  In its calculation of the potash area to be mined, DOE considered minable reserves inside and outside of the controlled area.

      In reviewing DOE's compliance with Section 194.32(b), EPA considered whether
the CCA included a detailed, accurate, and comprehensive analysis of mined resources in the WIPP area and sufficient information to demonstrate how mining probability was determined.  Specifically, EPA examined the validity of DOE's potash reserve estimates, including DOE's assumptions regarding potash reserve location, quality, and minable horizons.  EPA also examined the CCA to determine how hydraulic conductivity within supra-Salado units was modified relative to changes that could be caused by mining over the 10,000-year regulatory period.

194.32(c)

	EPA expected the CCA to assess whether appropriate events were identified and considered by DOE and whether the CCA presented analysis of effects on the disposal system and the effects of existing boreholes.  EPA considered how these events affected the disposal system and whether DOE addressed the potential for slant drilling.  EPA also examined whether DOE addressed potentially exploitable existing leases.

	DOE concluded that oil and gas exploration and exploitation and water and potash exploration are the only human-initiated activities that need to be considered for the PA (CCA Chapter 6.7.5).  DOE divided human-initiated activities into three categories:  (1) those that are currently occurring, (2) those that might be initiated in the operational phase, and (3) those that might be initiated after disposal.  Human-initiated activities included three different drilling-related intrusion scenarios used in the PA, based upon the screening analysis, designated by DOE as E1, E2 and E1E2 (CCA Chapter 6, p. 6-77).  The E1 scenario assumed penetration of a panel by a borehole drilled through the repository, which then strikes a brine pocket present in the underlying Castile Formation.  The E2 scenario included all future boreholes that penetrate a panel but do not strike an underlying brine pocket within the Castile Formation.  The E1E2 scenario was defined as the occurrence of multiple boreholes that intersected a single waste panel, with at least one of the events being an E1 occurrence.  Refer to Section 194.33(a) in CCA CARD 33 -- Consideration of Drilling Events in Performance Assessments for additional discussion of the three different drilling-related intrusion scenarios.  DOE's approach to mining is discussed in CCA CARD 32 Section 32.B.4.

	DOE included an assessment of the potential effects of existing boreholes as part of its FEPs screening analysis in the CCA.  DOE concluded that natural borehole fluid flow through abandoned boreholes would be of little consequence during current and operational phase activities.  In addition, DOE screened out the occurrence of flow through undetected boreholes based on low probability.  The CCA included CCA Appendix DEL, which described the oil and gas exploration and exploitation activities in the Delaware Basin and immediate WIPP area.  This document showed the location of oil and gas wells in the Delaware Basin and WIPP area and included maps presenting the location of existing leases.

	DOE provided additional information pertaining to brine extraction (solution mining) not included in the CCA.  Although the brine extraction FEP was not explicitly addressed in the CCA, this additional information indicated that brine extraction (solution mining) will not have an impact on the PA, as any changes in disposal system hydraulics caused by brine extraction were already accounted for in Culebra transmissivity and hydraulic head uncertainties.

194.32(d)

	EPA expected DOE to list those features, events and processes (FEPs) eliminated from the PA based on probability, and to discuss why they were not included.  DOE used this requirement to screen out FEPs such as nuclear criticality, galvanic coupling, formation of new faults, glaciation, and impact of large meteorites.

194.32(e)

	EPA expected the CCA to identify the processes and events or sequences and combinations of processes and events included in the performance assessment, including natural and human-initiated processes and events.  Evaluations of mining, deep drilling and shallow drilling must be included.  EPA expected the CCA to include linkages to PA codes and conceptual models and scenario development.  Scenarios are combinations of
FEPs that may be pertinent to the WIPP disposal system.  They include combinations pertinent to both disturbed and undisturbed repository performance.

	DOE concluded in the CCA that 16 of the 70 natural FEPs should be retained for the PA, including stratigraphy, shallow dissolution, saturated groundwater, infiltration, precipitation, and climate change.  Of the 108 waste and repository induced FEPs, DOE concluded that 50 of these should be retained for the PA, including disposal geometry, waste inventory, salt creep, backfill chemical composition, actinide solubility, spallings, and cavings.  DOE concluded that 15 of the 57 human-initiated EPs should be retained for the PA, including oil and gas exploration.

	DOE assessed scenarios ranging from the effects of deep and shallow drilling and mining to undisturbed disposal system performance.  DOE retained the scenarios describing both undisturbed and disturbed system performance.  Disturbed performance includes both mining and deep drilling (E1, E2, and E1E2 scenarios).  In CCA Chapter 6, Table 6-6, DOE identified the specific locations in the CCA that related to modeling of the individual FEPs.  These discussions focus on conceptual model development, but often link these conceptualizations with associated computational (computer) models.

	EPA reviewed the CCA to determine whether FEPs and subsequent scenarios were appropriately screened, adequately justified, and completely supported.  In addition, EPA examined combinations of FEPs and scenarios included in the PA.  EPA determined that DOE complied with the 40 CFR 194.32 requirements.

	A complete description of EPA's 1998 Certification Decision for Section 194.32 can be obtained from EPA Air Docket, A-93-02, Items V-A-1 and V-B-2.

2.3  Changes in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (2004 CRA)

	For the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (2004 CRA) and the new Performance Assessment Baseline Calculations (2004 PABC), DOE reevaluated all FEPs related to WIPP to determine if any had changed or new FEPs needed to be added.  DOE's reevaluation resulted in only a few changes to the FEPs analysis.  Some FEPs have had more information added, a few FEPs were deleted and merged with other FEPs and a few new FEPs have been added (See Table 32.5 below).

	Tables 32-1 to 32-4 list FEPs to which DOE applied the 40 CFR 194.32 (a) to (d) screening arguments (See 2004 CRA Appendix PA, Attachment SCR).   DOE methods, screening arguments, and conclusions were essentially the same as the CCA review results for the applied screening arguments for 40 CFR 193.32(a) through (d).  See CCA CARD 32 and 2004 CRA Chapter 6, 2004 CRA Appendix PA and 2004 CRA Attachment SCR for details of the methods used to do this evaluation.
               Table 32-1 2004 CRA FEPs 40 CFR 194.32(a) Applied
                                    FEP ID
                                   FEP Name
                              Screening Decision
                              Regulatory Citation
                           Attachment SCR Reference
H17
Archeological Excavations
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3
H20
Underground Nuclear Device Testing
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.2
H39
Changes in Groundwater Flow due to Explosions
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.2
H42
Damming of Streams and Rivers
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H43
Reservoirs
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H44
Irrigation
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H45
Lake Usage
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H46
Altered Soil or Surface Water Chemistry by Human Actions
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H50
Coastal Water Use
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H51
Seawater Use
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H52
Estuarine Water
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H53
Arable Farming
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H54
Ranching
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5
H55
Fish Farming
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(a)
<IP_ADDRESS>.5

               Table 32-2 2004 CRA FEPs 40 CFR 194.32(b) Applied
                                    FEP ID
                                   FEP Name
                              Screening Decision
                              Regulatory Citation
                           Attachment SCR Reference
H37
Changes in Groundwater Flow due to Mining
DP(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(b)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H38
Changes in Geochemistry Due to Mining
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(b)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.3
H13
Conventional Underground Potash Mining
UP(HCN)
DP (Future)
40 CFR 194.32(b)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
H58
Solution Mining For Potash
SO-R (HCN)
SO-R (Future)
40 CFR 194.32(b)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3

               Table 32-3 2004 CRA FEPs 40 CFR 194.32(c) Applied
                                    FEP ID
                                   FEP Name
                              Screening Decision
                              Regulatory Citation
                           Attachment SCR Reference
H40
Land Use Changes
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H41
Surface Disruptions
SO-R(Future)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H45
Lake Usage
SO-R(HCN)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H50
Coastal Water Use
SO-R(HCN)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H51
Seawater Use
SO-R(HCN)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H52
Estuarine Water
SO-R(HCN)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4
H55
Fish Farming
SO-R(HCN)
40 CFR 194.32(c)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4

               Table 32-4 2004 CRA FEPs 40 CFR 194.32(d) Applied
                                    FEP ID
                                   FEP Name
                              Screening Decision
                              Regulatory Citation
                           Attachment SCR Reference
N6
Salt Deformation
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1.1
N7
Diapirism
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1.1
N8
Formation of Fractures
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1.1
N10
Formation of New Faults
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.1
N11
Fault Movement
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.3.1
N13
Volcanic Activity
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N15
Metamorphic Activity
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.4.1
N18
Deep Dissolution
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N20
Breccia Pipes
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N21
Collapse Breccias
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N29
Saline Intrusion
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N30
Fresh Water Intrusion
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N32
Natural Gas Intrusion
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N40
Impact of Large Meteorite
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N62
Glaciation
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
N63
Permafrost
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W14
Nuclear Criticality: Heat
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W24
Large Scale Rock Fracturing
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W28
Nuclear Explosions
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W65
Reduction-Oxidation Fronts
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W95
Galvanic Coupling (outside the repository)
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1
W115
Chemical Degradation of Panel Closures
SO-P
40 CFR 194.32(d)
<IP_ADDRESS>.1

Legend:
	HCN	historic, current, and near future human activities
	SO-C	screened-out low consequence
	SO-P	screened-out low probability
	SO-R	screened-out using regulatory requirements
	DP	disturbed performance scenario

	DOE's reevaluation of FEPs  did not change the CCA conceptual models or scenarios developed for the performance assessment in any way.

32.3.1  Evaluation of Compliance for 2004 Recertification

	For the 2004 CRA, DOE applied the same approach to developing and screening the list of FEPs that may have an effect on the disposal system as was used for the CCA.  Since EPA previously evaluated and approved this process, EPA focused its 2004 recertification review on the FEPs that have changed since the 1998 Certification Decision (See Table 32.5 for a list of changes).  EPA examined 2004 CRA, Chapter 6 Section 6.2, 2004 CRA Appendix PA, and 2004 CRA Appendix PA Attachment SCR to verify DOE's continued compliance with 40 CFR 193.32.  See Docket Numbers A-98-49 Items II-BI-11 FEPs review and II-B1-10 Human Intrusion FEPs review for our review of DOE's reevaluation of 2004 CRA FEPs.

	EPA verified that DOE's FEP development and review process was fundamentally the same as the CCA process and verified that DOE's reevaluation properly considered things that have changed since the original certification decision in 1998.  EPA verified that any changes (See Table 32-5 below) to FEP screening arguments or FEPs related discussions were reasonable, appropriate and complete.

	EPA received one public comment related to the Scope of the Performance Assessment.  Some stakeholders proposed that karst (FEP N20) needs to be included in the performance assessment conceptual model development.  EPA reviewed the karst issues in the original CCA and concluded as follows:

"Karst features, such as Nash Draw, have formed via shallow (surface down) dissolution in the WIPP area.  The DOE has indicated that the development of karst features near and above the WIPP has been the subject of considerable study, and concluded that development of karst does not pose a threat to the containment capabilities of the disposal system.  Examination of information presented within the CCA, as well as other information, indicates that karst features are present in the WIPP area (particularly Nash Draw).  Although evidence of karst development at WIPP-33 is discussed only briefly in the CCA, as are opinions by others regarding the development of karst features, the EPA has reviewed all available data and concurs that the lack of pervasive WIPP-site karst, dry climate (including future precipitation projections), and pervasive Mescalero Caliche supports the DOE's conclusion with regard to karst." (Docket No: A-93-02 Item V-B-21)

	For the 2004 CRA EPA reevaluated our CCA review related to karst and any new information made available since our original certification decision.  Our review is discussed in 2004 CRA Technical Support Document for Section 194.14: Evaluation of Karst at the WIPP Site, Docket A-98-49 Item II-B-1-15.  After a thorough review the Agency determined that karst should not be screened into the performance assessment process because, even though karst may be present in Nash Draw karst are not prevalent near the WIPP site.
               Table 32.5  2004 CRA FEPs - Changed Since the CCA
                                   FEP I.D.
                                   FEP Name
                               Summary of Change

                         FEPs Combined with other FEPs
N17
Lateral Dissolution
Combined with N16, Shallow Dissolution.  N17 removed from baseline.
N19
Solution Chimneys
Combined with N20, Breccia Pipes, N19 removed from baseline.
H33
Flow Through Undetected Boreholes
Combined with H31, Natural Borehole Fluid Flow.  H33 removed from baseline.
W38
Investigation Boreholes
Addressed in H31, Natural Borehole Fluid Flow, and H33, Flow Through Undetected Boreholes. W38 removed from baseline.

                     FEPs With changed Screening Decisions
W50
Galvanic Coupling
SO-P to SO-C
W68
Organic Complexation
SO-C to UP
W69
Organic Ligands
SO-C to UP
H27
Liquid Waste Disposal
SO-R to SO-C
H28
Enhanced Oil and Gas Production
SO-R to SO-C
H29
Hydrocarbon Storage
SO-R to SO-C
H41
Surface Disruptions
SO-C to UP (HCN)

                               New FEPs for CRA
H58
Solution Mining for Potash
Separated from H13, Potash Mining
H59
Solution Mining for Other Resources
Separated from H13, Potash Mining
From 2004 CRA Appendix PA, Attachment SCR, Table SCR-1

32.3.2  2004 Recertification Decision

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2004 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.32 for 2004 CRA.

32.4  Changes in the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (2009 CRA)

	For the 2009 Compliance Recertification Application (2009 CRA) DOE reevaluated all FEPs related to WIPP to determine if any had changed or new FEPs needed to be added.  DOE's reevaluation resulted in only a few changes to the FEPs analysis.  Some FEPs have had more information added, one FEP had its screening decision changed and ten FEPs were split into twenty FEPs to make them more specific for panel closures and to apply specifically within the WIPP boundary (See Table 32.6 below).

	Tables 32-1 to 32-5 list FEPs to which DOE applied the 40 CFR 194.32 (a) to (e) screening arguments, none of these arguments have changed for 2009 CRA (See 2009 CRA Section 32, 2009 CRA Appendix PA-2009, 2009 CRA Appendix SCR-2009).   DOE's methods, screening arguments, and conclusions are essentially the same as the CCA and the 2004 CRA results for the applied screening arguments for 40 CFR 193.32(a) through (e).  See CCA CARD 32 and 2004 CRA Chapter 6, 2004 CRA Appendix PA and 2004 CRA Attachment SCR, 2009 CRA Section 32, 2009 CRA Appendix PA-2009 and 2009 CRA Appendix SCR-2009 for details of the methods used to do this evaluation.

	DOE's reevaluation of FEPs did not change the CCA or the 2004 CRA conceptual models or scenarios developed for the performance assessment in any way.

32.4.1  Evaluation of Compliance for 2009 Recertification

	For the 2009 CRA, DOE applied the same approach to developing and screening the list of 245 FEPs that may have an effect on the disposal system as was used for the CCA and the 2004 CRA.  Since EPA previously evaluated and approved this process, EPA focused its 2009 recertification review on the FEPs that have changed since the 2004 Recertification Decision (See Table 32.6 for a list of changes).  EPA examined 2009  CRA Section 32, 2009 CRA Appendix PA-2009, and 2009 CRA Appendix SCR-2009 to verify DOE's continued compliance with 40 CFR 193.32.  See EPA's Technical Support Document For Section 194.25, 194.32 and 194.33: Review of Changes to the WIPP Performance Assessment Features, Events, and Processes Since 2004 Recertification (EPA 2010c) and Technical Support Document For Section 194.23 and 194.33: 2009 Compliance Recertification Application Re-evaluation of Selected Human Intrusion Activities (EPA 2010d) for our review of DOE's reevaluation of 2009 CRA FEPs.  DOE updated 35 FEPs with new or revised information and the screening decision for H41-Surface Disruptions changed from SO-R to SO-C to make it consistent with rationale.  In addition DOE split 10 FEPs into twenty FEPs to make them more specific.  See Table 32-6 below for a list of these changes and also see 2009 CRA Section 32 for DOE's complete list of FEPs and their changes.

	EPA verified that DOE's FEP development and review process was fundamentally the same as the CCA and the 2004 CRA processes and verified that DOE's reevaluation properly considered things that have changed since the original certification decision in 1998 and the 2004 recertification.  EPA verified that any changes (See Table 32-6 below) to FEP screening arguments or FEPs related discussions were reasonable, appropriate and complete.

	EPA received one comment related to 40 CFR 194.32.  Once again, karst was recommended to be included in the FEPs for the WIPP performance assessment.  Therefore, EPA directed DOE in its second completeness letter, dated June 16, 2009 (EPA 2009b), to thoroughly review the comment received on karst.  EPA and DOE re-examined this comment and did not change our conclusions developed during the 2004 CRA review.  Karst features are in fact present in Nash Draw but are neither present nor active within the vicinity of the WIPP site.  Evidence presented by the commenter was difficult to analyze and did not completely support the commenters arguments (see Chaturvedi 2009). The commenter appeared to ignore work done by DOE within the past ten years, particularly new monitoring wells drilled at WIPP and pump tests performed at some of the wells.  The pump test results do not exhibit any clear evidence of karst activity.  Once again, EPA believes that karst features or processes do not need to be included in the WIPP performance assessment calculations and that the issues related to karst are closed unless truly new evidence is presented.
              Table 32.6  2009 CRA - FEPs Changed Since 2004 CRA
                                   FEP I.D.
                                   FEP Name
                               Summary of Change

                     FEPs With changed Screening Decisions
H41
Surface Disruptions
SO-R to SO-C (Future)

                    New FEPs for 2009 CRA-Split From Others
H60
Liquid Waste Disposal-Inside WIPP-IB
Separated from H27, Similar to H27 but applies inside WIPP boundary.
H61
Enhanced Oil and Gas Production-IB
Separated from H28, Similar to H28 but applies inside WIPP boundary
H62
Hydrocarbon Storage-IB
Separated from H29, Similar to H29 but applies inside WIPP boundary
W109
Panel Closure Geometry
Split for W6 to be specific to panel closure
W110
Panel Closure Physical Properties
Split for W7 to be specific to panel closure
W111
Panel Closure Chemical Composition
Split for W8 to be specific to panel closure
W112
Radionuclides Effects on Panel Closure
Split for W17 to be specific to panel closure
W113
Consolidation of Panel Closures
Split for W36 to be specific to panel closure
W114
Mechanical Degradation of Panel Closures
Split for W37 to be specific to panel closure
W115
Chemical Degradation of Panel Closures
Split for W74 to be specific to panel closure

                       FEPs Clarified to be Less Generic
H27
Liquid Waste Disposal - Outside Boundary (OB)
Changed to specify outside of site boundary
H28
Enhanced Oil and Gas Production - OB
Changed to specify outside of site boundary
H29
Hydrocarbon Storage  -  OB
Changed to specify outside of site boundary
W6
Shaft Seal Geometry
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W7
Shaft Seal Physical Properties
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W8
Shaft Seal Chemical Composition
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W17
Radiological Effects on Shaft Seals
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W36
Consolidation of Shaft Seals
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W37
Mechanical Degradation of Shaft Seals
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
W74
Chemical Degradation of Shaft Seals
Changed to specify shaft seals rather than generic seals.
From 2009 CRA, Section 32, 2009 CRA Appendix PA-2009, 2009 CRA Appendix SCR-2009

32.4.2  2009 Recertification Decision

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2009 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0330, Air Docket A-98-49), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.32 for 2009 CRA.

32.5  Changes in the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (2014 CRA)

	For the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (2014 CRA) DOE reevaluated all FEPs related to WIPP to determine if any had changed or new FEPs needed to be added.  DOE's reevaluation resulted in changes in some of the FEPs analysis. For the 2014 CRA, DOE's reassessment of FEPs led to the conclusion that out of 245 FEPs, the same as in the 2009 CRA, 184 were unchanged, 61 have been updated with new information, and 1 of which (W115) had its screening decision changed.

	Tables 32-1 to 32-4 (above) list FEPs to which DOE applied the 40 CFR 194.32 (a) to (e) screening arguments, three have been add since the CCA (H13, H58, and W115) (See 2014 CRA DOE Section 32, 2014 CRA Appendix PA-2014, 2014 CRA Appendix SCR-2014). DOE's methods, screening arguments, and conclusions are essentially the same as the CCA, the 2004 CRA, and the 2009 CRA. The results for the applied screening arguments for 40 CFR 193.32(a) through (e) had minor additions.  See CCA CARD 32, 2014 CRA DOE Section 32, 2014 CRA Appendix PA-2014 and 2014 CRA Appendix SCR-2014 for details of the methods used to do this evaluation.

	DOE's reevaluation of FEPs did not change the CCA, the 2004 CRA, or the 2009 CRA conceptual models or scenarios developed for the performance assessment in any way.

32.5.1  Evaluation of Compliance for 2014 Recertification

	For the 2014 CRA, DOE applied the same approach to developing and screening the list of 245 FEPs that may have an effect on the disposal system as was used for the CCA, the 2004 CRA and the 2009 CRA.  Since EPA previously evaluated and approved this process, EPA focused its 2014 recertification review on the FEPs that have changed since the 2009 Recertification Decision.  EPA examined 2014 CRA DOE Section 32, 2014 CRA Appendix PA-2014, and 2014 CRA Appendix SCR-2014 to verify DOE's continued compliance with 40 CFR 193.32.  See EPA's Technical Support Document For Section 194.25, 194.32 and 194.33: Review of Changes to the WIPP Performance Assessment Features, Events, and Processes Since 2009 Recertification (EPA 2017a) for our review of DOE's reevaluation of 2014 CRA FEPs.  DOE updated 61 FEPs with new or revised information, such as new monitoring and inventory information (see Kirkes 2013b, Table 4, ERMS 560488), and the screening decision for W115 Chemical Degradation of Panel Closures was changed from UP to SO-P because of the change in panel closure design to run of mine salt.

	EPA verified that DOE's FEP development and review process was fundamentally the same as the CCA and previous CRAs processes and verified that DOE's reevaluation properly considered things that have changed since the original certification decision in 1998 and the 2004 and 2009 recertifications.  EPA verified that any changes to FEP screening arguments or FEPs related discussions were reasonable, appropriate and complete.
	EPA had a number of comments on FEPs in EPA's second comment letter[1], general comment 2-32-G1 and specific comments 2-32-S1 through 2-32-S26.  First, EPA believed that screening arguments did not reflect changes that have occurred in past years.  EPA also believed that screening arguments need to provide a more complete discussion of the FEP and how it is determined to be screened-in or screened-out.  EPA also did not agree with some FEPs reported as "no change".  DOE responded in Response Letters Four and Five by updating some FEP arguments and providing additional information from recent studies.  DOE reevaluation based on EPA comments did not change any 2014 CRA FEP decisions.  EPA found DOE's changes to FEPs to be adequate.

32.5.2  2014 Recertification Decision

	Based on a review and evaluation of the 2014 CRA and supplemental information provided by DOE (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609), EPA determines that DOE continues to comply with the requirements for Section 194.32 for 2014 CRA.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62498-62499]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Leach Xpress Project and Rayne Xpress
Expansion Project

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC........  CP15-514-000
Columbia Gulf Transmission. LLC.......  CP15-539-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Leach XPress and Rayne XPress Expansion Projects (Projects),
proposed by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas) and Columbia
Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), respectively, in the above-
referenced dockets. Columbia Gas requests authorization to construct,
operate, abandon in-place, replace, and operate certain natural gas
pipeline facilities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to
transport about 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas per day of firm
transportation service to natural gas consumers served by the Columbia
Gas pipeline systems. Columbia Gulf requests authorization to add new
compression in Kentucky to provide about 621,000 dekatherms per day of
firm transportation on Columbia Gulf's system.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Projects in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the Projects would have some adverse
and significant environmental impacts; however, these impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of
Columbia Gas' and Columbia Gulf's proposed mitigation and the
additional measures recommended by staff in the final EIS.
    The Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, and West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of
the final EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the
proposals and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although the
cooperating agencies provided input to the conclusions and
recommendations presented in the final EIS, the agencies will present
their own conclusions and recommendations in their respective Records
of Decision for the Projects.
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following facilities:
     132 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, 24
miles of 36- inch-diameter looping pipeline,\1\ 28 miles of 20-inch-
diameter pipeline to be abandoned in place, 3 new compressor stations,
and appurtenant facilities including 2 existing compressor station
modifications, 4 new and 1 modified regulator stations, 13 pig launcher
and receiver facilities,\2\ 9 mainline valves and 5 odorization
facilities proposed by Columbia Gas; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
    \2\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     two new compressor stations, and a modification to an
existing measurement and regulation station proposed by Columbia Gulf.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the final EIS to federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. Paper copy versions of this final EIS were mailed to
those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version.
In addition, the final EIS is available for public viewing on the
FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies are available for distribution and public inspection
at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888
First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
514 or CP15-539). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with

notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: September 1, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21681 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13963-13966]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05384]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332; FRL-9907-74-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve rule revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
category for Offset Lithographic Printing, including the Reasonably
Available Control Technologies (RACT) requirements for this CTG
category for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and the Dallas-Fort-
Worth (DFW) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This rulemaking
addresses the 2006 CTG entitled, ``Lithographic Printing Materials and
Letterpress Printing Materials,'' as well as the corresponding RACT
analysis for both the HGB and DFW 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. This action is in accordance with sections 110, 172(c) and 182
of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332], by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332]. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(214) 665-6762, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Background
    A. What actions are we proposing?
    B. What is RACT?
II. Evaluation
    A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and
how do Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?
    B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW
for this CTG source category, and do the Revisions meet RACT
Requirements?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What actions are we proposing?

    The three submittals sent to the EPA from the TCEQ which are
addressed in this action are: (a) VOC CTG Update: CTG Category Offset
Lithographic Rulemaking, submitted April 5, 2010, (b) the 2010 HGB
Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category, submitted
April 6, 2010, and (c) the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP
Revision for the 1997

8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category,
submitted April 6, 2010.
    The April 5, 2010 rulemaking submittal provides revisions to 30
TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic
Compounds, Subchapter E, Division 4, ``Offset Lithographic Printing.''
In this action, we are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions
for Offset Lithographic Printing. These rules apply to the HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller counties) and DFW area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties).
    In addition, we are proposing to approve the portions of two
separate submittals that contain Texas' RACT assessment for the Offset
Lithographic Printing source category for the HGB and DFW 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. These two submittals are: The 2010 HGB Attainment
Demonstration SIP Revision, and the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and
Contingency SIP Revision, each dated April 6, 2010. Based on our review
and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the HGB AD SIP Revision,
including Appendix D ``Reasonably Available Control Technology
Analysis'' containing a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic
Printing for the HGB area, we are proposing to find that Texas has met
the RACT requirements for Offset Lithographic Printing for the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(b). Also, based on our
review and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the DFW RACT, Rule, and
Contingency SIP Revision, including Section 4 and Appendix A containing
a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW area, we
are proposing to find that Texas has met the RACT requirements for
Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section 182(b).

B. What is RACT?

    Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures
including RACT for sources of emissions. The EPA has defined RACT as
the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See 44
FR 53761, September 17, 1979. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires
that SIPs for nonattainment areas ``provide for the implementation of
all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide
for attainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).''
    Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision and implement RACT for moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe Area, a major stationary
source is one which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25
tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or nitrogen oxides
(NOX), respectively. See CAA sections 182(b), 182(c), and
182(d). The EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of
controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through the
issuance of CTG and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents. See
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/index.htm (URL dating May
23, 2012) for a listing of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs for VOC.
    Under CAA section 183(b), EPA is required to periodically review
and, as necessary, update CTGs. For the offset lithographic printing
source category, on November 8, 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for
offset lithographic printing (58 FR 59261). After reviewing comments on
the draft CTG and soliciting additional information to help clarify
those comments, EPA published an ACT document in June 1994 that
provided supplemental information for states to use in developing rules
based on RACT for offset lithographic printing. In 2006, 2007 and 2008,
EPA issued a number of CTGs, including one for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing which provided recommendations for
RACT for these sources.
    In accordance with the 2006, 2007 and 2008 CTGs, Texas revised its
Chapter 115 regulations to address these VOC RACT control measures. The
revisions to Chapter 115 regulations that correspond to the 2006 EPA-
issued CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and the related RACT
analysis for both HGB and DFW are the subject of this rulemaking
action. In this action, we consider that consistency with the CTG
represents RACT. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) for further
discussion of CTGs and RACT.
    The HGB Area was designated as Severe for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008. Thus, per section 182(d) of
the CAA, a major stationary source in the HGB Area is one which emits,
or has the potential to emit, 25 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
    On April 30, 2004, the EPA designated the DFW area as a moderate
nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, with an
attainment date of June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858). However, the DFW
area failed to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15, 2010, and was
therefore reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (see 75 FR
79302, December 20, 2010).\1\ Thus, per section 182(d) of the CAA, a
major stationary source in the DFW Area is one which emits, or has the
potential to emit, 50 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under
the 2008 ozone standard (see 77 FR 30088, published May 21, 2012).
In that action, the EPA designated Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. This action does not address the
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation

A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and how do
Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?

    Table 1 below shows the VOC CTG source category and the
corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 115 which fulfill the
applicable RACT requirements under section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act.

   Table 1--CTG Source Category and Corresponding Texas VOC RACT Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Chapter 115,
  Source category in HGB Area   CTG reference document   fulfilling RACT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offset Lithographic Printing..  Control Techniques      Sec.  Sec.
                                 Guidelines for Offset   115.440-449.
                                 Lithographic Printing
                                 and Letterpress
                                 Printing, EPA-453/R-
                                 06-002--September
                                 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action addresses changes to Texas' VOC rules affecting offset
lithographic printing sources in the DFW and Houston Galveston Brazoria
HGB 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These rule revisions reduce
the VOC content limits on fountain solutions used by sources that were
subject to the previous Chapter 115 rules. These rules also limit the
VOC content of fountain and cleaning solutions used by certain sources
that were exempt from the previous Chapter 115 rules.
    In general, these rule revisions require the owner or operator of
an affected offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content
of the fountain solution and the cleaning solution used in the printing
process. For reducing the VOC content of the fountain solution, these
rule revisions provide several compliance options including: Reducing
the alcohol content of the refrigerated solution; further reducing the
alcohol content of the unrefrigerated solution; or using reformulated
materials to eliminate alcohol in the solution. For reducing the VOC
content of the cleaning solution, these rule revisions also provide
several options, including using low-VOC cleaning solutions; using low-
VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work practice standards; or
using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in conjunction with work
practice standards.
    Letterpresses. The 2006 CTG recommends controlling VOC emissions
from letterpress printing. This SIP revision does not include rule
changes for letterpress printing sources because review of the point
source emissions inventory, Title V Permits and central registry
databases did not identify any letterpresses that would be subject to
the CTG recommended controls.
    Heatset Offset Lithographic Presses. The 2006 CTG recommends
requiring an add-on air pollution control device on each individual
heatset web offset-lithographic press with the uncontrolled potential
to emit at least 25 tpy from ink oils volatilized in the dryer. In
addition, the CTG recommends increasing the control efficiency
requirement from 90% to 95% for control devices installed after the
rule effective date. This SIP revision does not include new rule
changes for heatset presses because the State found that the existing
rules are at least as effective or more effective than the 2006 CTG
recommendations. For control devices installed before the effective
date of the rule, in the HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules
either meet or exceed EPA's recommendations for control devices
installed before the effective date of the rule. In the DFW area, the
existing level of control on heatset presses identified in the area
either meets or exceeds the CTG recommendation for control devices. For
control devices installed after the effective date of the rule, the
2006 CTG recommendation to require a 95% control efficiency was
determined by the State to be no more stringent than the existing rules
which require control devices with an efficiency of at least 90% to be
installed on all heatset offset lithographic presses located on a
property with combined VOC emissions (when uncontrolled) of at least 50
tpy in the DFW area and at least 25 tpy in the HGB area. The State
found that the existing rule ``is effectively more stringent than the
CTG recommended threshold for installation of control devices based on
25 tpy of VOC from the dryer because the majority of emissions
(approximately 75%) come from sources other than the dryer.''
Additionally, the 2006 CTG recommends setting the control efficiency
requirement of the control equipment based on the first installation
date of the equipment, regardless of the location. The State
intentionally did not revise its SIP to incorporate this recommendation
due to a concern that ``such a policy may encourage the installation of
older less efficient equipment and could also create significant
practical enforceability issues for commission investigators with
regard to verifying the first installation date of the control
equipment.'' Based upon our review, we agree with the State's
determination for this source category.
    Fountain Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the fountain
solution content to 5.0% alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no
alcohol in the fountain solution. Prior to these revisions, for major
sources, the previous Chapter 115 rules contained an option limiting
the fountain solution content to 3.0% alcohol substitutes or less by
weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution for printing operations
located on a property in the DFW area with combined VOC emissions of at
least 50 tpy when uncontrolled and in the HGB area with combined VOC
emissions of at least 25 tpy when uncontrolled. For these major
printing sources that were previously subject to this more stringent
limit, these revisions retain a limit of 3.0% alcohol substitutes or
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution to avoid
backsliding. Small businesses were not previously subject to these
rules. However, in this action, small businesses are now included, and
this SIP revision offers several options which are as stringent as the
2006 CTG to help mitigate the financial impact of these regulations.
These options for smaller sources include the 2006 CTG recommendation
to limit the fountain solution content to 5% alcohol substitutes or
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution. Additionally,
the compliance date for smaller sources was extended to March 1, 2012
to provide additional time for these facilities to determine the most
cost-effective compliance strategies and to implement any necessary
changes.
    Cleaning Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the VOC content
of cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations
to 70.0% VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. The
Texas rule revisions require the owner or operator of an affected
offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content of the
cleaning solutions used in the printing process and provide several
options for complying, including the following: Using low-VOC cleaning
solutions; using low-VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work
practice standards; or using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in
conjunction with work practice standards. These revisions retain the
existing Chapter 115 rule requiring a cleaning solution content limit
of 70% by volume in conjunction with work practice standards as an
option. Also, these revisions retain the previously existing Chapter
115 option to limit the cleaning solution content to 50% VOC by volume.
Because the existing rules were determined by TCEQ to be at least as
stringent as the 2006 CTG recommendations, TCEQ included these options
to retain the flexibility afforded to owners and operators subject to
the previous rules. The 2006 CTG also recommends specific work
practices for cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing
lines with uncontrolled potential to emit at least 3.0 tpy of VOC.
These rule revisions include the CTG's recommended work practice
standards for cleaning solutions.
    Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Testing Requirements. All affected
sources are required to comply with monitoring, recordkeeping, and
testing requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
content limits in these rule revisions.
    Non-Substantive Revisions. In addition to the revisions described
above to implement RACT for offset lithographic printing, these
revisions include approvable grammatical, stylistic, and various other
non-substantive changes to update the rule

in accordance with current requirements, to improve readability, to
establish consistency in the rules, and to conform to standards in the
``Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual,'' dated September 2008.

B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW for
this CTG source category, and do the revisions meet RACT requirements?

    Under CAA sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B), states must insure RACT is
in place for each source category for which EPA issued a CTG. As a part
of a June 13, 2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a RACT analysis to
demonstrate that the RACT requirements for CTG sources in the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ conducted
its analyses by: (1) Identifying all categories of CTG and major non-
CTG sources of VOC and NOX emissions within the HGB Area;
(2) Listing the state regulation that implements or exceeds RACT
requirements for that CTG or non-CTG category; (3) Detailing the basis
for concluding that these regulations fulfill RACT through comparison
with established RACT requirements described in the CTG guidance
documents and rules developed by other state and local agencies; and
(4) Submitting negative declarations when there are no CTG or major
Non-CTG sources of VOC emissions within the HGB Area. The TCEQ revised
its rules for Offset lithographic printers and supplemented its 2007
analysis in its April 6, 2010 submittals in response, in part, to EPA's
issuance of the CTG for Offset Lithographic printing.
    We have reviewed these revisions to Chapter 115 for Offset
Lithographic Printing and have determined that they are in are in
agreement with EPA's CTG documents listed in Table 1 above. See our TSD
prepared in conjunction with this document. Because these revisions are
in agreement with our CTG, we are proposing that they satisfy RACT
requirements, and by implementing these measures Texas is meeting the
VOC RACT requirements for this source category in the HGB and DFW 1997
8-hour ozone nonattainment Areas. In addition, in its April 6, 2010,
submittals to EPA for HGB and DFW, TCEQ states that it has reviewed the
HGB and DFW VOC rules for Offset Lithographic Printing and certifies
that they satisfy RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
by the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. We are proposing to
approve these determinations that Texas VOC rules for Offset
Lithographic Printing sources are in agreement with the CAA's RACT
requirements and as a result the Texas SIP satisfies the RACT
requirements for this CTG source category in the HGB and DFW Areas
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions for the VOC
CTG source category identified in Table 1, Offset Lithographic
Printing. In addition, we are proposing to find that for this CTG
category Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW
Areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

IV. 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. If a portion of the plan revision meets
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the
Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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;
     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); and
     this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-05384 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Metabolites in Texas: (Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide). Project
Number: RAAVY007, YT/01/01, B003390. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer
Corp. and LFR Levine-Fricke, Inc. 749 p.

46793705	Wyatt, D.; Jones, R.; Nandihalli, U.; et. al. (2006) A
Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and its
Metabolites in the Mississippi Delta Region: (Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb
Pesticide). Project Number: RAAVY008, YT/01/01, B003390. Unpublished
study prepared by Bayer Corp. and LFR Levine-Fricke, Inc. 690 p.

46793706	Lee, R.; Jones, R.; Wyatt, D.; et. al. (2006) A Retrospective
Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and its Metabolites in the
Southeastern United States. Project Number: RAAVY009, YT/01/01, B003390.
Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. and LFR Levine-Fricke, Inc.
2955 p.

46796100	Bayer CropScience LP (2006) Submission of Toxicity, Exposure
and Risk Data in Support of the Reregistration of the Aldicarb
Containing Product Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide. Transmittal of 3
Studies.

46796101	Ramanarayanan, T. (2006) Refined Aquatic Ecological Exposure
Assessment for Total Carbamate Residues From Aldicarb. Project Number:
MEAVY006. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. 75 p.

46796102	Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2006) Refined Aquatic
Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201482. Unpublished study
prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 234 p.

46796103	Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Teed, R.; et. al. (2006) Refined
Wildlife Risk Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201483, 88390.
Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 493 p.

46796600	Bayer CropScience LP (2006) Submission of Exposure and Risk
Data in Support of the Reregistration Aldicarb. Transmittal of 2
Studies.

46796601	Young, B.; Mihlan, G.; Lantz, J.; et. al. (2006)
CARES-compatible Dietary Minute Module (DMM) Version 2.2 Build 7.8.9
(3/14/06). Project Number: G201503. Unpublished study prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. and Infoscientific.Com. 38 p.

46796602	Kelly, I.; Lantz, J.; Mihlan, G.; et. al. (2006)
CARES-compatible Dietary Minute Module (DMM) Version 2.2 Build 7.8.9
(3/14/2006): Technical Manual. Project Number: G201504. Unpublished
study prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 27 p.

46819500	Bayer CropScience LP (2006) Submission of Environmental Fate
Data in Support of the Reregistration of the Aldicarb Containing Product
Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide. Transmittal of 1 Study.

46819501	Lenz, M.; Jones, R.; Wyatt, D.; et. al. (2006) A Retrospective
Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in
California. Project Number: RAAVY006, 004/11333/00, YT/01/01.
Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Corp. and LFR Levine-Fricke, Inc.
767 p.

46834000	Interregional Research Project No. 4 (2006) Submission of Fate
Data in Support of the Registration of Citrus Fruits Group 10.
Transmittal of 1 Study.

46834001	Chen, H. (2006) Crop Grouping Petition Citrus Fruits Group 10,
Technical Amendment to 40 CFR 180.41 (c)(10) and 180.1 (h). Unpublished
study prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4 and U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture. 303 p.

46857900	Interregional Research Project No 4 (2006) Submission of
Residue Data. Transmittal of 1 Study.

46857901	Chen, H. (2006) Crop Grouping Petition Pome Fruit Group 11,
Technical Amendment. Project Number: A/27200/16/06. Unpublished study
prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4. 390 p.

46873100	Bayer CropScience LP (2006) Submission of Exposure and Risk
Data in Support of the Reregistration of Aldicarb Product Containing
Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticide. Transmittal of 1 Study.

46873101	Best, L.; Brewer, L.; Klaine, S.; et. al. (2006) Refined
Ecological Risk Assessment for Aldicarb Expert Peer Review Panel Process
and Comments. Project Number: EPR/32306. Unpublished study prepared by
Bayer CropScience LP. 10 p.

46891400	Bayer CropScience (2006) Submission of Risk and Exposure Data
in Support of the Reregistration of Aldicarb. Transmittal of 5 studies.

46891401	Tobia, A.; Blacker, A. (2006) Bayer CropScience's Assessment
and Rebuttal of the Reference Dose as Proposed by EPA in the Health
Effects Division Revised Preliminary Human Helath Risk Assessment for
Aldicarb Issued on May 12, 2006. Project Number: G201557. Unpublished
study prepared by Bayer Crop Science LP. 16 p.

46891402	Lantz, J.; Young, B.; Jones, R.; *et. al. (2006) Aldicarb Acute
Dietary Risk Assessment Including Food and Drinking Water Volume 1.
Project Number: G201350. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Crop
Science LP. 219 p.

46891403	Kelly, I.; Lantz, J.; Mihlan, G.; *et. al. (2006) Incorporating
Rapid Reversibility into the Dietary Risk Assessment for Aldicarb.
Project Number: G201550. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Crop
Science LP. 33 p.

46891405	Hall, L. (2006) The Benefits to Agriculture of Temik Brand 15G
Aldicarb Pesticide. Project Number: G201529. 126 p.

46891406	Fischer, D.; Ramanarayanan, T.; Jones, R. (2006) Response to
the EPA Environmental Risk Assessment for the Aldicarb Reregistration
Eligibility Decision. Project Number: G201560. Unpublished study
prepared by Bayer Crop Science LP. 23 p.

46898900	Bayer CropScience (2006) Submission of Efficacy Data in Support
of the Reregistration of Aldicarb. Transmittal of 1 Study.

46898901	Blacker, A.; Jones, R.; Kelly, I.; et. al.; (2006) Aldicarb:
Human Health Risk Assessment for Use on Currently Registered and Pending
Registrations as of May 2006. Project Number: G201555. Unpublished study
prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 86 p.

47061700	Interregional Research Project NO.4. (2007) Submission of
Residue Data in Support of the Petition for Tolerance of Stone Fruits
Group. Transmittal of 1 Study.

47061701	Chen, H. Crop Grouping Petition-Stone Fruit Group 12, Technical
Amendment To 40 CFR 180.41 (C) 12 And 180.1 (h). Project Number: 09896.
Unpublished study prepared by Interregional Research Project No. 4. 304
p.

47124600	Bayer CropScience (2007) Submission of Risk and Exposure Data
in Support of the Reregistration of Aldicarb. Transmittal of 1 Study.

47124601	Fisher, D.; Ramanarayanan, T.; Moore, D.; et. al.; (2007)
Effects Determination for California Red-Legged Frog Potentially Exposed
to Aldicarb. Project Number: 88380, 201692. Unpublished study prepared
by Cantox Environmental, Inc. 138 p.

47164600	Croplife America (2007) Submission of Environmental Fate and
Exposure and Risk Data in Support of the Preservation of the California
Red Legged Frog. Transmittal of 2 Studies.

47164601	Moore, D.; Breton, R.; Rodney, S.; et. al.; (2007) Generic
Problem Formulation for California Red-Legged Frog. Project Number:
89320, 05232007. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc.
87 p.

47164602	Holmes, C.; Vamshi, R. (2007) Data and Methodology Used for
Spatial Analysis of California Red Legged Frog Observations and
Proximate Land Cover Characteristics. Project Number: 3152007,
WEI/252/03. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc.
(WEI). 19 p.

Appendix E. Generic Data Call-In (GDCI)   TC " Appendix E. Generic Data
Call-In (GDCI)" \f C \l "2"

Note that a complete generic DCI, with all pertinent instructions, will
be sent to registrants under separate cover.

Appendix F. Product-Specific Data Call-In (PDCI)   TC " Appendix F.
Product-Specific Data Call-In (PDCI)" \f C \l "2"

Note that a complete product-specific DCI, with all pertinent
instructions, will be sent to registrants under separate cover.

Appendix G. EPA’s Batching of Aldicarb Products for Meeting Data
Requirements for Reregistration  TC " Appendix G. EPA’s Batching of
Aldicarb Products for Meeting Data Requirements for Reregistration" \f C
\l "2"

In an effort to reduce the time, resources and number of animals needed
to fulfill the acute toxicity data requirements for reregistration of
products containing ALDICARB as the active ingredient, the Agency has
batched products which can be considered similar for purposes of acute
toxicity. Factors considered in the sorting process include each
product's active and inert ingredients (identity, percent composition
and biological activity), type of formulation (e.g., emulsifiable
concentrate, aerosol, wettable powder, granular, etc.), and labeling
(e.g., signal word, use classification, precautionary labeling, etc.).
Note that the Agency is not describing batched products as
"substantially similar" since some products within a batch may not be
considered chemically similar or have identical use patterns.

Using available information, batching has been accomplished by the
process described in the preceding paragraph. Notwith-standing the
batching process, the Agency reserves the right to require, at any time,
acute toxicity data for an individual product should the need arise.

Registrants of products within a batch may choose to cooperatively
generate, submit or cite a single battery of six acute toxicological
studies to represent all the products within that batch. It is the
registrants' option to participate in the process with all other
registrants, only some of the other registrants, or only their own
products within a batch, or to generate all the required acute
toxicological studies for each of their own products.  If a registrant
chooses to generate the data for a batch, he/she must use one of the
products within the batch as the test material.  If a registrant chooses
to rely upon previously submitted acute toxicity data, he/she may do so
provided that the data base is complete and valid by today's standards
(see acceptance criteria attached), the formulation tested is considered
by EPA to be similar for acute toxicity, and the formulation has not
been significantly altered since submission and acceptance of the acute
toxicity data. Regardless of whether new data is generated or existing
data is referenced, registrants must clearly identify the test material
by EPA Registration Number. If more than one confidential statement of
formula (CSF) exists for a product, the registrant must indicate the
formulation actually tested by identifying the corresponding CSF.

In deciding how to meet the product specific data requirements,
registrants must follow the directions given in the Data Call-In Notice
and its attachments appended to the RED. The DCI Notice contains two
response forms which are to be completed and submitted to the Agency
within 90 days of receipt.  The first form, "Data Call-In Response,"
asks whether the registrant will meet the data requirements for each
product.  The second form, "Requirements Status and Registrant's
Response," lists the product specific data required for each product,
including the standard six acute toxicity tests.  A registrant who
wishes to participate in a batch must decide whether he/she will provide
the data or depend on someone else to do so.  If a registrant supplies
the data to support a batch of products, he/she must select one of the
following options: Developing Data (Option 1), Submitting an Existing
Study (Option 4), Upgrading an Existing Study (Option 5) or Citing an
Existing Study (Option 6). If a registrant depends on another's data,
he/she must choose among: Cost Sharing (Option 2), Offers to Cost Share
(Option 3) or Citing an Existing Study (Option 6). If a registrant does
not want to participate in a batch, the choices are Options 1, 4, 5 or
6. However, a registrant should know that choosing not to participate in
a batch does not preclude other registrants in the batch from citing
his/her studies and offering to cost share (Option 3) those studies.

Six products were found which contain Aldicarb as the active ingredient.
 These products have been placed into two batches in accordance with the
active and inert ingredients and type of formulation.

Batching Instructions:

NOTE: The technical acute toxicity values included in this document are
for informational purposes only.  The data supporting these values may
or may not meet the current acceptance criteria.

Batch 1

          EPA Reg. No.

              Percent Active Ingredient

	264-330	15.0

	264-417	15.0

	264-426	15.0

	264-523	15.0

Batch 2

          EPA Reg. No.

              Percent Active Ingredient

	264-322	10.0

	264-331	10.0

Appendix H. List of Available Related Documents and Electronically
Available Forms  TC " Appendix H. List of Available Related Documents
and Electronically Available Forms" \f C \l "2"

Pesticide Registration Forms are available at the following EPA internet
site:  http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/.

Pesticide Registration Forms (These forms are in PDF format and require
the Acrobat reader)

Instructions:

Print out and complete the forms. (Note: Form numbers that are bolded
can be filled out on your computer then printed.)

The completed form(s) should be submitted in hardcopy in accord with the
existing policy.

Mail the forms, along with any additional documents necessary to comply
with EPA regulations covering your request, to the following address for
the Document Processing Desk:

			Document Processing Desk (distribution code)*

			Office of Pesticide Programs (7504P)

			Environmental Protection Agency

		1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

		Washington, DC 20460-0001

* Distribution Codes are as follows:

(APPL) Application for product registration

(AMEND) Amendment to existing registration

(CAN) Voluntary Cancellation

(EUP) Experimental Use Permit

(DIST) Supplemental Distributor Registration

(SLN) Special Local Need

(NEWCO) Request for new company number

(NOTIF) Notification

(PETN) Petition for Tolerance

(XFER) Product Transfer

DO NOT fax or e-mail any form containing “Confidential Business
Information” or “Sensitive Information.”

If you have any problems accessing these forms, please contact Nicole
Williams at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> If you want these forms mailed or
faxed to you, please contact Lois White<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Floyd
Gayles<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have any questions concerning how to complete these forms, please
contact OPP’s ombudsperson for conventional pesticide products: Linda
Arrington,<PHONE_NUMBER>

The following Agency Pesticide Registration Forms are currently
available via the Internet at the following locations:

8570-1	Application for Pesticide Registration/Amendment
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-1.pdf

8570-4	Confidential Statement of Formula
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-4.pdf

8570-5	Notice of Supplemental Registration of Distribution of a
Registered Pesticide Product
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-5.pdf

8570-17	Application for an Experimental Use Permit
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-17.pdf

8570-25	Application for/Notification of State Registration of a
Pesticide To Meet a Special Local Need
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-25.pdf

8570-27	Formulator's Exemption Statement
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-27.pdf

8570-28	Certification of Compliance with Data Gap Procedures
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-28.pdf

8570-30	Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-30.pdf

8570-32	Certification of Attempt to Enter into an Agreement with other
Registrants for Development of Data
http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/8570-32.pdf

8570-34	Certification with Respect to Citations of Data  (in PR Notice
98-5)	http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-5.pdf

8570-35	Data Matrix  (in PR Notice 98-5)
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-5.pdf

8570-36	Summary of the Physical/Chemical Properties  (in PR Notice 98-1)
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-1.pdf

8570-37	Self-Certification Statement for the Physical/Chemical
Properties  (in PR Notice 98-1)
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr98-1.pdf

Pesticide Registration Kit
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/registrationkit/

Dear Registrant:

	For your convenience, we have assembled an on-line registration kit
which contains the following pertinent forms and information needed to
register a pesticide product with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP):

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as Amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

Pesticide Registration (PR) Notices

a.	83-3 Label Improvement Program-Storage and Disposal Statements

b.	84-1 Clarification of Label Improvement Program

c.	86-5 Standard Format for Data Submitted under FIFRA

d.	87-1 Label Improvement Program for Pesticides Applied through
Irrigation Systems (Chemigation)

e.	87-6 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products Policy Statement

f.	90-1 Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Products; Revised Policy
Statement

g.	95-2 Notifications, Non-notifications, and Minor Formulation
Amendments

h.	98-1 Self Certification of Product Chemistry Data with Attachments
(This document is in PDF format and requires the Acrobat reader.)

Other PR Notices can be found at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices.

Pesticide Product Registration Application Forms (These forms are in PDF
format and will require the Acrobat reader.)

a.	EPA Form No. 8570-1, Application for Pesticide Registration/Amendment

b.	EPA Form No. 8570-4, Confidential Statement of Formula

c.	EPA Form No. 8570-27, Formulator's Exemption Statement

d.	EPA Form No. 8570-34, Certification with Respect to Citations of Data

e.	EPA Form No. 8570-35, Data Matrix

General Pesticide Information (Some of these forms are in PDF format and
will require the Acrobat reader.)

Registration Division Personnel Contact List

Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) Contacts

Antimicrobials Division Organizational Structure/Contact List

53 F.R. 15952, Pesticide Registration Procedures; Pesticide Data
Requirements (PDF format)

40 CFR Part 156, Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices (PDF
format)

40 CFR Part 158, Data Requirements for Registration (PDF format)

50 F.R. 48833, Disclosure of Reviews of Pesticide Data (November 27,
1985)

	Before submitting your application for registration, you may wish to
consult some additional sources of information.  These include:

The Office of Pesticide Programs' Web Site

The booklet "General Information on Applying for Registration of
Pesticides in the United States", PB92-221811, available through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at the following address:

			National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

		5285 Port Royal Road

		Springfield, VA 22161

The telephone number for NTIS is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please note that EPA is
currently in the process of updating this booklet to reflect the changes
in the registration program resulting from the passage of the FQPA and
the  reorganization of the Office of Pesticide Programs. We anticipate
that this publication will become available during the Fall of 1998.

The National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) of Purdue
University's Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information
Systems. This service does charge a fee for subscriptions and custom
searches. You can contact NPIRS by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
through their website.

The National Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN) can provide
information on active ingredients, uses, toxicology, and chemistry of
pesticides. You can contact NPTN by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
through their website:  http://npic.orst.edu

The Agency will return a notice of receipt of an application for
registration or amended registration, experimental use permit, or
amendment to a petition if the applicant or petitioner encloses with his
 submission a stamped, self-addressed postcard. The postcard must
contain the following entries to be completed by OPP:

Date of receipt

EPA identifying number

Product Manager assignment

Other identifying information may be included by the applicant to link
the acknowledgment of receipt to the specific application submitted. EPA
will stamp the date of receipt and provide the EPA identifying File
Symbol or petition number for the new submission. The identifying number
should be used whenever you contact the Agency concerning an application
for registration, experimental use permit, or tolerance petition.

To assist us in ensuring that all data you have submitted for the
chemical are properly coded and assigned to your company, please include
a list of all synonyms, common and trade names, company experimental
codes, and other names which identify the chemical (including "blind"
codes used when a sample was submitted for testing by commercial or
academic facilities). Please provide a CAS number if one has been
assigned.

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  11  of   NUMPAGES  191

Page   PAGE  20  of   NUMPAGES  191

Page   PAGE  67  of   NUMPAGES  191

 PAGE

Page  PAGE   73  of   NUMPAGES  191


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 158]
[FR Doc No: E9-31127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1867-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

New Jersey; 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 State of New Jersey (FEMA-1867-DR), dated December 22,
2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: December 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated December 22, 2009, 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 State
of New Jersey resulting from severe storms and flooding associated
with Tropical Depression Ida and a nor'easter during the period of
November 11-15, 2009, 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 State of New Jersey.
    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 Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct
Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William L. Vogel of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of New Jersey have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Atlantic, Cape May, and Ocean Counties for Public Assistance.
Direct Federal Assistance is authorized.
    All counties within the State of New Jersey are eligible to
apply 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. E9-31127 Filed 12-31-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P