Y "

4 Jz B U/ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 Application for Critical Use Exemption of Methyl Bromide for Use in 2005 in the United States WHY IS THIS I N F 0 RM AT I 0 N NEEDED? Under the Clean Air Act and the international treaty to protect the ozone layer ( the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer), the production and import of methyl bromide will be phased out in the United States on January 1, 2005. This application seeks information to support a U. S. request to produce and import methyl bromide for certain critical uses and circumstances beyond this 2005 phaseout date.

The information in this application will be used to review whether your use of methyl bromide is " critical" because no technically and economically feasible alternatives are available. In order to estimate the loss as a result of not having methyl bromide available, EPA needs to compare data ( yields, cropkommodity prices, revenues and costs) for your use of methyl bromide with uses of alternative pest control regimens.

If you submit a well documented application with sound reasons why alternatives are not technically and economically feasible, the U. S. government can be a better advocate for your exemption request internationally.

Click on the Instructions tab located at the bottom of the screen for additional information.

h , " ,

EPA AIR DOCKET . I Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information: adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 INSTRUCTIONS The information provided by you in this application will be used to evaluate the requested methyl bromide use. The US. and other countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer decided that: " a use of methyl bromide should qualify as " critical" only if the nominating Party determines that:

( i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and ( ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination ...' I APPLIES?

r CONTACTS I APPLY?

I L OMB Control # If you anticipate that you will need methyl bromide in 2005 because you believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives, then you should apply for the critical use exemption. This application may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users. We encourage users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application ( for example, any number of pre plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can submit a single application.)

If a consortium is applying for multiple methyl bromide users, the economic data should be for a representativc or typical user within the consortium unless otherwise noted. If economic or technical factors ( such as size of the farm) affecting the ability of this " representative user" to use alternatives are significantly different than other users in the consortium, more than one application should be submitted to reflect these differences.

Please contact your local, state, regional or national commodity association and/ or state representative agenc; to find out if they plan on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group.

States that have agreed to participate in the exemption process are listed on EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ cueqa. html You may either complete an electronic ( Microsoft Excel) or a printed version of the application. Please fill out each form or worksheet in the application as completely as possible. If you are completing the printed version and need extra space you may attach additional sheets as needed. Additional information may be available from your local state department of agriculture or at the sites listed below or by calling 1 800 296 1996,

Each worksheet number corresponds to the tab number in the electronic version of the application. Instructions specific to each worksheet are provided at the top of each sheet. A header row is included on each worksheet to include an application ID number that EPA will assign.

Instructions Worksheet 1. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Worksheet 2. Methyl Bromide  Historical Data 2 A. Methyl Bromide Use 1997 2000 2 B. Methyl Bromide  CroplCommodity Yield and Revenue 1997 2000 2 C. Methyl Bromide  CroplCommodity Yield and Revenue 2001 2 D. Methyl Bromide Use and Costs for 2001 ? E. Methyl Bromide  Other Operating Costs for 2001 2 F. Methyl Bromide  Fixed and Overhead Costs , ..

Worksheet 3. Alternatives  Feasibility of Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility Research Summary Worksheet Example Research Sum ( Summary) Worksheet 3 B. Alternatives  Pest Control Regimen Costs 3 C. Alternatives  Crop/ Commodity Yield and Revenue 3 D. Alternatives  Other Operating Costs Worksheet 4. Alternatives  Research Plans Worksheet 5. Additional Information Worksheet 6. Application Summary Fumigation Cycle Climate Zone Map 2060 0482 IS MY INFORMATION > ONFIDENTIAL?

WHEN IS THE INFORMATION NEEDED?

WHERE DO I SUBMIT THE APPLICATION?

HOW CAN I RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 The applicant may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all'of the information in the application by placing on ( or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures set forth under 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart B; 41 FR 36902,43 FR 400000. 50 FR 51 661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant. Applicants submitting their application via e mail assume responsibility for the confidentiality of the electronic rn This application must be postmarked to the EPA address below no later than 120 days after the Notice was published in the Federal Reaister requesting critical use exemption applications.

Electronic Address for applications: methyl. bromide@ epa. gov ( When submitting an application electronically, you should also print a hard copy, sign the copy, and submit it by mail)

Mailing Address for applications being submitted by mail directly to the EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Global Programs Division, Mail Code 6205J 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 0001 Address for applications being sent by courier or non U. S. Postal overniaht express delivery to EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption Global Programs Division 501 3rd St. NW Washington, DC 20001 phone: ( 202) 564 9410 If you have general questions about this application call:

Stratospheric Ozone Hotline 1 800 296 1 996 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet I. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information The following information will be used to determine the amount of methyl bromide requested and the contact person for this request. It is important that we know whom to contact in case we need additional information during the review of the application.

Location ( Enter the state, region, or county. Provide more detail about the location if relevant to the feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide.)

Croplcommodity ( Include all crops/ commodities that benefit from the application of methyl bromide in a fumigation cycle. A fumigation cycle is the period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.)

Climate ( Individual users should enter their climate zone designation by reviewing the U. S. climate zone map. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each climate zone. This map is located at the end of this workbook or it can be reviewed online at http:// www. usna. usda. gov/ Hardzone/ ushzmap. htmI).

Soil type Check the box( es) for the soil types and percent organic matter that apply to your area. If a consortium is submitting this application, please indicate the estimated percentage of consortium users in each soil type.

Soil Type: Light Medium Heavy over 5% Organic Matter: 0 to 2% 2 t 0 5 %

Other geographic factors that may affect croplcommodity yield ( e. g., water table).

Consortium name Specialty ( check one)

Contact name agronomic Address economic ~ ~

Daytime phone IO. FAX 11. E mail List an additional contact person if available. Specialty ( check one)

12. Contact name agronomic 13. Address economic 14. Daytime phone 15. FAX 16. E mail ,

Year 2006 2007 For EPA Use Only ID# Worksheet I. Contact and Methyl Bromide Request Information Quantity ai ( Ib.) of Methyl Bromide Area to be Treated Unit of Area Treated 17. How much active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide are you requesting for 2005? Ibs. If a consortium is submitting this application, the data for question 17 and 17a. should be the total for the consortium.

In the question below, area is defined as follows for each user: acres for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications.

17a. How much area will this be applied to? Please list units. units 18. Are you requesting methyl bromide for additional years beyond 2005? Yes No 18a' If yes, please list year and quantity active ingredient ( ai) of methyl bromide requested in the table below and explain why you need authorization for multiple years.

19. Target Pest@) or Pest Problem( s): ( Be as specific as possible about the species or classes of pests relevant to the feasibility of alternatives.)

20. If applying as a consortium for many users of methyl bromide, please define a representative user. Define exactly, issues such as size of the operation ( acres treated with methyl bromide for growers, cubic feet for post harvest operations, and square feet for structural applications), whether the representative user owns or rents the land or operation, intensity of methyl bromide use ( treat regularly or only when pest reaches a threshold), pest pressure, etc.

20a. Explain why this user represents the typical user in the consortium.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 0 0 0 i l Q, rn . E e m U e Lc a,

x U m 5 n 8 P 2 c m  c c ! a,

5 a, n 0 = 0  c ln a, Ll L E E u) .

8 0 z L L I E z 8 5 2 0 ln C a,

L v)

rn f 2  m 3 0 a,

V a, c)

5 e! "  +

9 3 0 S m a, Q

I I?! 5 2 L m m U a, I 5 K 0 0 c m a a m 2 5 E t: E n I?! E 2 r 0 C 0 0 m e

a 3 m  L m % z E L c 0 ( 0 a 8  m L 2 a, 3 K a,

6 a,

a U x Q E E k % B F a,

K 2  m 0 a, c c 5 L I a, c u 0 0 D x m m r L e z al S C 0 K m 0 c  w 7 0 0 hl Q) 3 C Q)

2i . !

1 E i m m P L Q 3 S Q Y L L ..

5 L) c a, m . E 2 m . cI a, a, c tn E P 9 a, m U 3 Q m m m U .

c c 8 0 2 i a,

0 Q a,

0 . c 3 2 b e n I 0 c  e 2 3 0 c 1 I. E a I I c m 3 U m U != m U ti 0 3 fn . c,

B 0 L 0 L e U S w Q) Q 0 J J 2 e cn 5 5 n 3 I Q)

E E 0 m" 3 R c c I n 0 m a rc I o I  . I I Q I c, j CI Q) Q) x v) Y L P ? 3 For EPA Use Only init Worksheet 3 A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility of Alternatives to'Methyl 3romide In this worksheet, you should address why an alternative pest management strategy on the list ( see previous page) is or is not effective for your conditions. This worksheet contains 9 questions. You must complete one copy of worksheet 3 A for each research study you use to evaluate a single methyl bromide alternative. Use additional pages as need.

For worksheet 3 A you must complete one worksheet for each alternative. for each research study addressed. Please number the worksheets as follows. For the same alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3 A( l)( a). For the samc alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3 A( l)( b). For the first alternative, third research study, label the worksheet 3 A( l)( c). For the second alternative, first research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( Z)( a). For the second alternative, second research study, label the worksheet 3( A)( 2)( b).

When completing Section II, if you cite a study that is on the EPA website, you only need to complete questions 1,5, and 8.

Summarize each of the research studies you cite in the Research Summary Worksheet.

If you prefer, you may provide the information requested in this worksheet in a narrative review of one or more relevant research reports. The narrative review must reply to Section I and questions 1 through 8 in Section II. A Research Summary Worksheet of relevant treatments should be provided for each study reviewed.

BACKGROUND EPA must consider whether alternative pest control measures ( pesticide and non pesticidal, and their combination) could be used successfully instead of methyl bromide by crop and circumstance ( geographic area.) The Agency has developed a list of possible alternative pest control regimens for various crops, which can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr or by calling 1 800 296 1 996.

There are three major ways you can provide the Agency with proof of your investigative work. ( 1) Conduct and submit your own research ( 2) Cite research that has been conducted by others ( 3) Cite research listed on the EPA website Whether you conduct the research yourself or cite studies developed by others, it is important that the studies be conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The studies should include a description of the experimental methodology used, such as application rates, application intervals, pest pressure, weather conditions, varieties of the crop used, etc. All results should be included, regardless of outcome. You must submit copies of each study to EPA unless they are listed on the Agency website.

The Agency has posted many research studies on a variety of crops on its website and knows of more studies currently in progress. EPA will add studies to its website as they become publicly available. You are encouraged to review the EPA website and other websites for studies that pertain to your crop and geographic area.

In addition, EPA acknowledges that, for certain circumstances, some alternatives are not technically feasible and therefore no researcr has been conducted ( Le. solarization may not be feasible in Seattle). You should look at the list of alternatives provided by the Agency and explain why they cannot be used for your crop and in your geographic area.

Use additional pages as needed.

Alternative: Study: [ in Section 1. Initial Screening on Technical Feasibility of Alternatives I. Are there any location specific restrictions that inhibit the use of this alternative on your site?

l a . Full use permitted 1 b. Township caps 1 c. Alternative not acceptable in consuming country I d . Other ( Please describe)

If use of this alternative is precluded by regulatory restriction for all users covered by this application, the applicant should not complete Section II. For EPA Use Only ID#

Worksheet S A. Alternatives  Technical Feasibility ot Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Section II. Existing Research Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide 1. Is the study on EPA's website? Yes No la. If not on the EPA website, please attach a copy.

2. Author( s) or researcher( s)

3. Publication and Date of Publication 4. Location of research study 5. Name of alternative( s) in study. If more than one alternative, list the ones you wish to discuss.

6. Was crop yield measured in the study? Yes No 7. Describe the effectiveness of the alternative in controlling pests in the study.

8. Discuss how the results of the study apply to your situation. Would you expect similar results? Are there other factors that would affect your adoption of this tool?

OMB Control # 2060 0482 m  m 2 u c a,

e b U 9 P I a c ._ P a,

x 0 n E 8 5 P 2 W +

0

5 a u > I i 1 > 1 > ?

I I I ! h I !

! tt a 2 E 0 s rc 0 > I U .  !

g u) m a LL m 0 S c 0 a . v 0 a I m n U . W x U  5 , o z, a, L m c >

I I U a a c rn z 3 . C 0 i D W $

1  C C  a c N $

E L .. . P 2 CI m a E b c v)

v) 0 0 CI c . E a 2  0 S L CI s C v) Q P I v)

z m a P f 2 4 m C Q Q c v) Y L 2 I L s 3 9 m 5 0 Q W "

Q 5' E.

b ( 0 3 _.

s 3 a 3 8' 0 3 m 2 s 3 Y a 4 g P U m s 8'

5 L 3' P 8 a 3 V a ; a 10 ? m 5' 0 s 8' 3 C 3,

2 s 8' 0)

3 W . e a P , ,

;

I a 1 W Q m Lc I LI a, v) S  E! 2 0 S v) c L c  2 . m c v) . a,

$ e 7 0 0 e 0 a a b c N 0)

8 w 1 I >

5 Qi L. 7 n I For EPA Use Only I D#

Worksheet 4. Alternatives  Future Research Plans Please describe future plans to test alternatives to methyl bromide. ( All available methyl bromide alternatives from the alternatives list should have been tested or have future tests planned.) There is no need to complete a separate worksheet for future research plans for each alternative  you may use this worksheet to describe dl future research plans.

I. Name of study:

2. Researcher( s):

3. Your test is planned for:

4. Location:

5. Name of alternative to be tested:

6. Will crop yield be measured in the study? Yes No 7  If additional testing is not planned, please explain why. ( For example, the available alternatives have been tested and found unsuitable, an alternative has been identified but is not yet registered for this crop, available alternatives are too expensive for this crop, etc.)

OMB Control # 2060 0482 j m m o 01 asayl padxa noA op uayM ' sql jspunod Aueu M O ~ ' saA 41 :( Aqads aseald) : spoyiau ie3! uay3 uou Jaylo ' 3 1 . Qpads aseald saA 41 For EPA Use Only ID#

I Worksheet 5. Add i t i ona I In formation ( con t i n u ed)

8. Range of square feet of the area to which applicants included in this application will apply methyl bromide? ( insert number of users in each category)

0  5,000 Sq. ft.

5,001  10,000 Sq. ft.  10,001  20,000 sq. ft.  20,001  40,000 Sq. ft.

 40,001  80,000 Sq. ft.  80,001  160,000 Sq. ft. over 160,000 sq. ft.

I certify that all information contained in this document is factual to the best of my knowledge.

Signature Date Print Name Title information in this application may be aggregated with information from other applications and used by the United States government to justify claims in the national nomination package that a particular use of methyl bromide be considered " critical" and authorized for an exemption beyond the 2005 phaseout. Use of aggregate data will be crucial to making compelling arguments in favor of critical use exemptions. By signing below, you agree not to assert any claim of confidentiality that would affect the disclosure by EPA of aggregate information based in part on information contained in this application.

Signature Date Print Name Title Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions: develop. acquire. install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information: search data sources: complete and review the collection of information: and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 324 hours per response and assumes a large portion of applications will be submitted by consortia on behalf of many individual users of methyl bromide. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person Is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current OMB control number.

OMB Control # 2060 0482 l 3 I


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17125-17127]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0036; FRL-9992-64-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submittal from the
State of Maryland for the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard). Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised
NAAQS, states are required to make a SIP submission showing how the
existing approved SIP has all the provisions necessary to meet the
requirements of the new or revised NAAQS, or to add any needed
provisions necessary to meet the revised NAAQS. The SIP revision is
required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited
to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. Maryland has made a submittal addressing the
infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing
to approve Maryland's SIP revision addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements of section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2019-0036 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, Planning and
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
5787. Ms. Schmitt can also be reached via

electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 11, 2018, the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

I. Background

    On October 26, 2015, EPA issued a final rule revising both the
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average
concentrations to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA provides the procedural
and timing requirements for SIPs, while section 110(a)(2) lists
specific elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP
requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects
the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains. In the case of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 and 2008
ozone NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On October 11, 2018, EPA received a SIP revision submittal from MDE
to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2015
ozone NAAQS (Maryland's submittal). Maryland's submittal addressed the
following infrastructure elements, or portions thereof, for the 2015
ozone NAAQS: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), D(i)(II), D(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing to make a
determination that the submittal meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), D(i)(II), D(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M), or portions thereof, of the CAA. Following EPA guidance,
which was issued on September 13, 2013 (2013 guidance),\1\ Maryland's
October 11, 2018 SIP submittal did not address the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to permit programs, known as nonattainment new
source review (NNSR), under part D, title I of the CAA, and section
110(a)(2)(I), referred to as element (I), also pertaining to the
nonattainment requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. Both element
(I) and the NNSR portion of element (C) pertain to SIP revisions that
are collectively referred to as a nonattainment SIP or an attainment
plan and, if required due to an area being designated nonattainment,
would be due by the dates statutorily prescribed under subparts 2
through 5 under part D of the CAA. Because the CAA directs states to
submit these plan elements on a separate schedule, EPA does not believe
it is necessary for states to include these elements in the
infrastructure SIP submission due three years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland's submittal also did not include a portion to address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (significant contribution to nonattainment
or interference of maintenance through interstate transport of air
emissions). Therefore, EPA will take later, separate action on section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, once this portion has been
submitted.
    A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving
Maryland's submittal may be found in the technical support document
(TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0036.

III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs

    Pursuant to EPA's interpretation of section 110(a) of the CAA,
states must provide SIP revisions addressing relevant infrastructure
SIP elements from section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) or provide
certification that the existing SIP contains provisions adequately
addressing these elements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Due to ambiguity in some of the language of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA, EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret these
provisions in the specific context of acting on infrastructure SIP
submissions. EPA has previously provided comprehensive guidance on the
application of these provisions through a guidance document for
infrastructure SIP submissions and through regional actions on
infrastructure submissions.\2\ In addition, in the context of acting on
such infrastructure submissions, EPA evaluates the submitting state's
SIP for facial compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements,
not for the state's implementation of its SIP.\3\ EPA has other
authority to address any issues concerning a state's implementation of
the rules, regulations, consent orders, etc. that comprise its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA explains and elaborates on these ambiguities and its
approach to address them in its September 13, 2013 Infrastructure
SIP Guidance (available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf), as well as in numerous agency actions, including EPA's prior
action on Maryland's infrastructure SIP to address the 2008 ozone
NAAQS (79 FR 25054 (May 2, 2014).
    \3\ See U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in
Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug.
30, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's October 11, 2018 SIP
revision which provides the basic program elements, or portions
thereof, specified in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This proposed
rulemaking is not taking action on section 110(a)(2)(I) nor on the NNSR
permitting program requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), which pertain
to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the
CAA. Such SIP revisions are required when an area is designated
nonattainment and, if required, would be due to EPA by the dates
statutorily prescribed in CAA part D, subparts 2 through 5. Because the
CAA directs states to submit these plan elements on a separate
schedule, EPA does not believe it is necessary for states to include
these elements in the infrastructure SIP submission due three years
after adoption or revision of a NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is not taking
action on CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference of maintenance through interstate
transport of air emissions) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because Maryland's
submission did not include this element. EPA will take later, separate

action on this element once it has been submitted.
    EPA is seeking public comment on whether Maryland's SIP revision
meets the infrastructure requirements in 110(a)(2). These comments will
be considered before taking final rulemaking action. Please refer to
the TSD for this rulemaking which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0036, for further
discussion of each element being associated with this approval.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to Maryland's section
110(a) infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 12, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-08165 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77220-77221]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG12-16-000.
    Applicants: Rocky Ridge Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of Rocky Ridge Wind Project,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER07-521-011.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Revised Compliance Implementation Plan and Status
Report of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc..
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2774-002.
    Applicants: Arizona Solar One LLC.
    Description: Arizona Solar One LLC submits a notification of change
in status.
    Filed Date: 11/9/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-0204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4256-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Resubmit LGIA Amendment to Walnut Creek Energy Project
with WCE to be effective 8/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4375-001.
    Applicants: City of Pasadena, California.
    Description: City of Pasadena Offer of Settlement and Settlement
Agreement to be effective 9/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4437-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing to the APS Large Generator
Interconnection Procedures to be effective 11/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4676-001.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Residential Exchange Program Settlement Implementation
Agreemt Schedule 620 to be effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4733-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2011-12-01 CAISO SCP-QF Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-41-001.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Filing of an Amendment to be effective 12/7/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-508-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3148; Queue No. X1-021
to be effective 11/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-509-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Revised Rate Schedule 106 of Florida Power Corporation
to be effective 12/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-510-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Revised Volume 14 to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-511-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: NWPP Reserve Energy Service Volume 9 to be effective
10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-512-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 7, Version 2--Revised
Reserve Energy Service to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-513-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Revisions to PJM Tariff Attachment DD re RPM Triennial
Review & RPM performance to be effective 1/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-514-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 42--Northwest Power Pool Agreement
to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/1/11.
    Accession Number: 20111201-5215.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-515-000.
    Applicants: Sperian Energy Corp.
    Description: Market Base Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 12/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-515-001.
    Applicants: Sperian Energy Corp.
    Description: Compliance Filing to MBR Tariff to be effective 12/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-515-002.
    Applicants: Sperian Energy Corp.
    Description: Compliance MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 12/1/
2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-516-000.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Member Rate Schedule Tariff Filing to be effective 1/
1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-517-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 12-02-11 Schedule 37 Revisions to be effective 1/1/
2012 .
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.

    Accession Number: 20111202-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-518-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3149; Queue No. X1-043
to be effective 11/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11

    Docket Numbers: ER12-519-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3147; Queue No. W4-103
to be effective 11/3/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-520-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: First Revised Service Agreement No. 2925; Queue No.
W3-130 to be effective 11/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-521-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Second Revised Service Agreement No. 2789; Queue No.
W3-129 to be effective 11/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-522-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Ridgeline Meadow Creek E&P Agreement to be effective
2/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/2/11.
    Accession Number: 20111202-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/23/11.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 2, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31792 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P