[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39741-39742]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0464; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01290-T;
Amendment 39-22097; AD 2022-13-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
a report of inadvertent auto flight system (AFS) altitude changes on
the flight control unit (FCU). This AD requires revising the existing
airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a procedure on the use of the
AFS control panel ALT knob and replacing any affected FCU with a
serviceable FCU, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also
prohibits the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 9, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 9,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0464.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0464; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0260, dated November 18, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0260) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model
A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on April 18, 2022 (87 FR 22816). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of inadvertent AFS altitude changes on the FCU. The NPRM
proposed to require revising the existing AFM to include a procedure on
the use of the AFS control panel ALT knob and replacing any affected
FCU with a serviceable FCU, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0260. The NPRM
also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address erroneous target altitude
during descent, climb, or go-around, which could result in an
unexpected vertical trajectory deviation and loss of correct
situational awareness that could potentially result in uncontrolled
impact with the ground. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as
proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0260 describes procedures for revising the existing
AFM to include a procedure on the use of the AFS control panel ALT knob
and replacing any affected FCU having part numbers (P/N) C31006AC01 or
C31006AB01 with a serviceable FCU having P/N C31006AD01. This material
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 27 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product           Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 6 work-hours x $85 per hour =         $27,000  Up to $27,510................  Up to $742,770.
 $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:
2022-13-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22097; Docket No. FAA-2022-0464;
Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01290-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective August 9, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto Flight.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of inadvertent auto flight
system (AFS) altitude changes on the flight control unit (FCU); an
investigation revealed that, depending on the ring selection,
failure of the ALT knob on the FCU could change the target altitude.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address erroneous target altitude
during descent, climb, or go-around, which could result in an
unexpected vertical trajectory deviation and loss of correct
situational awareness that could potentially result in uncontrolled
impact with the ground.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0260, dated November 18, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0260).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0260

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0260 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2021-0260 specifies to
``inform all flight crews, and thereafter, operate the aeroplane
accordingly,'' this AD does not require those actions as those
actions are already required by existing FAA operating regulations.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0260 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0260,
dated November 18, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0260, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 14, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-14194 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 49212-49213]
[DOCID:fr20au08-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-0799]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC). NOSAC provides
advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters
affecting the offshore industry.

DATES: Application forms should reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing Mr. James
Magill, Assistant Executive Director of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222),
U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001;
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Also a copy of the
application form, as well as this notice, is available in our online
docket, USCG-2008-0799 at http://www.regulations.gov and at the Coast
Guard's Advisory Committee homeport Web page at: https://
homeport.uscg.mil/nosac. Send your completed application to the
Assistant Executive Director at the street address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Patrick W. Clark, Executive
Director of NOSAC, or James M. Magill, Assistant Executive Director,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOSAC is a Federal advisory committee
established under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). It consists of 15 regular
members who

have particular knowledge and experience regarding offshore technology,
equipment, safety and training, as well as environmental expertise in
the exploration or recovery of offshore mineral resources. It provides
advice and makes recommendations to the Assistant Commandant for Marine
Safety, Security and Stewardship regarding safety, security and
rulemaking matters relating to the offshore mineral and energy
industries. This advice assists the Coast Guard in developing policy
and regulations and formulating the positions of the United States in
advance of meetings of the International Maritime Organization.
    NOSAC meets approximately twice a year, with one of these meetings
being held at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC. It may also
meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees and working groups
may meet to consider specific problems as required.
    We will consider applications for five positions. These positions
will begin in January 2009. Applications should reach us by November
30, 2008. If we do not receive sufficient qualified applicants by the
deadline we may consider applications received later if they arrive
within a reasonable time before we make our recommendations to the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
    To be eligible, applicants should have experience in one of the
following categories: (1) Offshore supply vessel services including
geophysical services, (2) construction of offshore facilities, (3)
offshore operations, (4) offshore drilling or (5) offshore production
of oil and gas. Please state on the application form which of the five
categories you are applying for. Each member normally serves a term of
3 years or until a replacement is appointed. A few members may serve
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from
the Federal Government.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of NOSAC, send
a completed application form to Mr. James Magill, Assistant Executive
Director of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by
faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send the application form in time for it to be
received by the DFO on or before November 30, 2008.
    A copy of the application form is available in the docket for this
notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2008-0799) in the Search
box, and click ``Go''.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
J.G. Lantz
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, Assistant Commandant
for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-19179 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59561-59566]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23818]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0493; FRL-9361-4]

Sulfoxaflor; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of sulfoxaflor, N-methyloxido [1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-
pyridinyl]ethyl] [lambda]\4\-sulfanylidene] cyanamide, including its
metabolites and degradates in or on cotton, undelinted seed; cotton,
gin byproducts; and cotton, hulls. This action is in response to EPA's
granting of emergency exemptions under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of
the pesticide on cotton. This regulation establishes maximum
permissible levels for residues of sulfoxaflor in or on these
commodities. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 28, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2012,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0493, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Docket in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, Rm.
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0493 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2012. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0493, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statue.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for combined residues of
sulfoxaflor, N-methyloxido [1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]ethyl]
[lambda]\4\-sulfanylidene] cyanamide, including its metabolites and
degradates in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 parts per million
(ppm); cotton, gin byproducts at 6.0 ppm; and cotton, hulls at 0.35
ppm. These time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue * *
*.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Sulfoxaflor for Various Commodities and
FFDCA Tolerances

    The states of Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana
submitted emergency use requests for the use of the unregistered active
ingredient, sulfoxaflor, on cotton to control the tarnished plant bug.
The requests are a result of the resurgence of tarnished plant bug as a
primary pest of cotton. The states assert growers are facing a longer
control season for tarnished plant bug. In addition, tarnished plant
bug has developed resistance to registered alternatives. After having
reviewed the submissions, EPA determined that emergency conditions
exist for these States, and that the criteria for emergency exemptions
are met. EPA has authorized specific exemptions under FIFRA section 18
for the use of sulfoxaflor on cotton for control of tarnished plant bug
in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of sulfoxaflor
in or on cotton. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety
standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move
quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-
routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and
lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and opportunity
for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Although
these time-limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2015, under FFDCA
section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the
amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on cotton,
undelinted seed; cotton, ginbyproducts; and cotton, hulls after that
date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a
level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time
of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
sulfoxaflor meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on cotton
or whether permanent tolerances for this use would be appropriate.
Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these time-limited
tolerances decision serves as a basis for registration of sulfoxaflor
by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does
this tolerance by itself serve as the authority for persons in any
State other than Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Louisiana to use
this pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent
the issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State.
For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for
sulfoxaflor, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address
provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate
exposure expected as a result of these emergency exemption requests and
the time-limited tolerances for combined residues of sulfoxaflor in or
on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); cotton, gin
byproducts at 6.0 ppm; and cotton, hulls at 0.35 ppm. Use of cotton
commodities conforming to these temporary tolerances as animal feed is
not expected to produce sulfoxaflor residues in livestock commodities.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
these time-limited tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sulfoxaflor for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       NOAEL = 1.8 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 0.06 g/  Developmental Neurotoxicity Study.
 years of age).                     day.                  kg/day.              LOAEL = 7.1 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 3x............  aPAD = 0.06 mg/kg/    decreased neonatal survival on
                                   >UFH = 10x..........   day.                 postnatal day 0 through 4.
                                   >FQPA SF = 1x.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study. LOAEL =
 including infants and children).  UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.              75 mg/kg/day based on decreased
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/    motor activity.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 5.13 mg/kg/   Chronic RfD = 0.05   Chronic/Carcinogenicity Study in
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           the Rat. LOAEL = 21.3 mg/kg/day
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/    based on liver effects including
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 increased blood cholesterol,
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        liver weight, hypertrophy, fatty
                                                                               change, single cell necrosis and
                                                                               macrophages observed in the males
                                                                               and females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Sulfoxaflor is classified as ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
                                    Potential.'' Quantification of risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD)
                                    will adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members
  of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level.
  NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sulfoxaflor, EPA considered exposure under the time-limited
tolerances established by this action. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from sulfoxaflor in food as follows:
    i. Acute and Chronic exposure. Acute and chronic effects were
identified for sulfoxaflor. In estimating acute and chronic dietary
exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). EPA's dietary
exposure assessment assumed that all cotton in the U.S. is treated with
sulfoxaflor (i.e., 100% crop treated); an empirical factor of 0.1X to
account for the reduction in sulfoxaflor residues during the processing
of cottonseed into oil (which is the only human food associated with
cotton); and used health-protective models to estimate residues in
drinking water.
    ii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure and
risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on the
weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk may be quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. If
sufficient information is available to determine the carcinogenic mode
of action, and that mode of action has a threshold, then EPA will use a
threshold or nonlinear approach and calculate a cancer RfD based on an
earlier noncancer key event. If the mode of carcinogenic action is
unknown, or if the mode of action appears to be mutagenic, a default
linear cancer slope factor approach is utilized. Based on studies
demonstrating key events of a hypothesized mode of action leading to
the observed tumors and no mutagenicity concerns, EPA has concluded
that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk
to sulfoxaflor. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure
estimates as discussed in Unit IV.B.1.i., acute and chronic exposure.
    iii. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT)
information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information
in the dietary assessment for sulfoxaflor. For this risk assessment,
EPA assumed that all cottonseed oil contains tolerance level residues
(modified by an empirical processing factor) and that 100% of cotton is
treated with sulfoxaflor.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sulfoxaflor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of sulfoxaflor. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
sulfoxaflor for acute exposures are estimated to be 2.76 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 45.1 ppb for ground water; for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.865
ppb for surface water and 45.1 ppb for ground water. Environmental fate
data indicate that the predominant residue in surface water will be the
parent compound and the predominant residue in groundwater will be the
X11719474 metabolite (88% of the total residue) and X11519450 (12% of
the total residue). For convenience, EPA's exposure assessment
multiplies the relative toxicity of each metabolite by its proportion
to express the residue concentration in terms of parent sulfoxaflor-
equivalents.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 0.045 ppm (0.0397 ppm
X11719474 + 0.0054 ppm X11519450) was used to assess the contribution
of drinking water to dietary exposure for the general population,
except women of child-bearing age (13-49 years). For females 13-49
years old, the acute surface water EDWC (0.0028 ppm) was used to assess
the contribution of drinking water. For

chronic dietary risk assessment for the general population, including
females 13-49 years old, the ground water concentration of value 0.066
ppm was used to assess the contribution of drinking water. The
groundwater value of 0.066 ppm reflects individual concentrations of
X11719474 and X11519540, adjusted for their relative potencies of 0.3X
and 10X, respectively.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sulfoxaflor is
currently not registered for any use that will result in residential
exposure. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and
generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and'' other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found sulfoxaflor to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and sulfoxaflor does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
sulfoxaflor does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity databases for sulfoxaflor are complete. Although adverse
developmental effects were observed in rats, the mode of action is
understood and does not appear relevant to humans. Data indicate that
juvenile rats are uniquely sensitive to perturbation of the muscular
nicotinic receptor by sulfoxaflor, leading to sustained muscle
contraction and increased neonatal deaths. Supporting studies indicate
that sulfoxaflor does not interact with nicotinic receptors in the
adult rat, fetal human, or adult human. Furthermore, the observation
that no neonatal deaths or neuromuscular/skeletal effects were noted in
the rabbit developmental toxicity study supports the conclusion that
rats are uniquely sensitive to developmental toxicity due to
sulfoxaflor exposure. These differences suggest that to the extent that
neonatal death in rats occurs as a result of sulfoxaflor binding to the
fetal receptor, these effects would not be observed in humans.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings: the level of concern for neurotoxicity is low because the
effects are well characterized and clear NOAELs are established.
Similarly, although there is increased quantitative susceptibility in
the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study, the level of concern for
the increased susceptibility is low because the effects are well
characterized and the endpoints chosen for risk assessment are
protective of potential in utero developmental effects. In addition,
the exposure assessments are highly conservative and unlikely to
underestimate exposure/risk.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure
that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to sulfoxaflor will occupy 4% of the aPAD for infants (<1 year), the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
sulfoxaflor from food and water will utilize 9% of the cPAD for infants
(<1 year)the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There
are no residential uses for sulfoxaflor.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term
adverse effect was identified; however, sulfoxaflor is not registered
for any use patterns that would result in short-term residential
exposure. Because there is no short-term residential exposure,
sulfoxaflor poses no short-term risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
sulfoxaflor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure, sulfoxaflor poses no intermediate-term risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA determined that
there is a ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential'' for
sulfoxaflor based on the preputial gland tumor response seen in rats.
When there is suggestive evidence, the Agency does not attempt a dose-
response assessment as the nature of the data generally would not
support one. Rather, the Agency has determined that quantification of
risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD) will
adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity,
that could result from exposure to sulfoxaflor.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to sulfoxaflor residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methods have been submitted for both data
collection and for enforcement purposes. In the submitted field trial
and processing studies, residues of sulfoxaflor and its metabolites in
crops were determined using 2 different Dow analytical methods
(designated as 091031 or 091116). The proposed method for tolerance
enforcement in plant commodities is method 091116: Enforcement Method
for the Determination of Sulfoxaflor (XDE-208) and its Main Metabolites
in Agricultural Commodities using Offline Solid-Phase Extraction and
Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry Detection. Method
091116 extracts residues with acetonitrile/water and includes use of a
deuterated internal standard, hydrolysis with NaOH to release base-
labile conjugates, and clean up via solid-phase extraction. This method
is applicable for the quantitative determination of residues of
sulfoxaflor and its metabolites in agricultural commodities and
processed products. The method was adequately validated, with a limit
of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.010 mg/kg for all matrices. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for sulfoxaflor.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of,
sulfoxaflor, N-methyloxido [1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]ethyl]
[lambda]\4\-sulfanylidene] cyanamide including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 parts per million
(ppm); cotton, ginbyproducts at 6.0 ppm; and cotton, hulls at 0.35 ppm.
These tolerances expire on December 31, 2015.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e)
and 408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted
these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 20, 2012.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.668 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.668  Sulfoxaflor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. [Reserved]
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
insecticide, sulfoxaflor,

N-methyloxido [1-[6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]ethyl] [lambda]\4\-
sulfanylidene] cyanamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the following table resulting from use of the
pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be
determined by measuring only sulfoxaflor in or on the commodity. The
tolerances expire on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Parts per  Expiration
                    Commodity                       million       date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton, undelinted seed.........................        0.2     12/31/15
Cotton, gin byproducts..........................        6.0     12/31/15
Cotton, hulls...................................        0.35    12/31/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2012-23818 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10903-10909]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0352; FRL-10016-75-Region 9]

Approval of Arizona State Implementation Plan Revisions; Maricopa
County Air Quality Department; Stationary Source Permits; New Source
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on revisions to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD)
portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of
Arizona. We are proposing full approval of seven MCAQD rules for the
Department's New Source Review (NSR) preconstruction permitting program
for new and modified stationary sources of air pollution. We are taking
comments on this proposed rule and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0352 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any

comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, or if you need
assistance in a language other than English, or if you are a person
with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to
you, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-3-1), San Francisco, California 94105. By phone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What is the background for today's proposal?
    B. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    C. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
    (ii) The word or initials CAA or Act mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal
Regulations.
    (iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The word or initials MCAQD or Department mean or refer to
the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, the agency with
jurisdiction over stationary sources within Maricopa County,
Arizona.
    (vi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
    (vii) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (viii) The initials NNSR mean or refer to nonattainment New
Source Review.
    (ix) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (x) The initials SIP means or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (xi) The word State means or refers to the State of Arizona.
    (xii) The word TSD means or refers to the Technical Support
Document.

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    On December 20, 2019, the ADEQ submitted the revised rules in Table
1 to the EPA as a revision to the Maricopa County portion of the
Arizona SIP. The ADEQ is the governor's designee for submitting
official revisions of the Arizona SIP to the EPA. These rules
constitute the MCAQD's air quality preconstruction NSR permit program.

                                         Table 1--MCAQD Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adoption or
           Regulation & Rule No.                          Rule title              amendment date     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation I, Rule 100.....................  General Provisions; General              12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Provisions and Definitions.
Regulation II, Rule 200....................  Permits and Fees; Permit                 12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Requirements.
Regulation II, Rule 210 \1\................  Permits and Fees; Title V Permit         12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Provisions.
Regulation II, Rule 220....................  Permits and Fees; Non-Title V            12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Permit Provisions.
Regulation II, Rule 230....................  Permits and Fees; General Permits..      12/11/2019      12/20/2019
Regulation II, Rule 240....................  Permits and Fees; Federal Major New      12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Source Review.
Regulation II, Rule 241....................  Permits and Fees; Minor New Source       12/11/2019      12/20/2019
                                              Review.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 2020, the MCAQD's Rules 100, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240,
and 241 were deemed complete by operation of law in accordance with 40
CFR part 51, Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 210 also contains requirements to address the CAA title
V requirements for operating permit programs, but we are not
evaluating the rule for title V purposes at this time. We will
evaluate Rule 210 for compliance with the requirements of title V of
the Act and the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 70
following receipt of an official part 70 program submittal from
Maricopa County containing this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    On April 5, 2019, the EPA finalized full approval of MCAQD Rules
210, 220, 240, and 241, and conditional approval of Rules 100 and 200,
as amended on February 3, 2016 and September 7, 2016, into the Maricopa
County portion of the Arizona SIP. (See 84 FR 13543 (April 5, 2019),
and 84 FR 18392 (May 1, 2019).) Our detailed analysis for the April 5,
2019 final SIP action is provided in the May 17, 2018 Technical Support
Document (TSD) and March 18, 2019 Response to Comments.
    The existing SIP-approved NSR program for new or modified
stationary sources in Maricopa County consists of the rules identified
in Table 2. Collectively, these rules establish the NSR permit
requirements for stationary sources under the MCAQD's jurisdiction.
    The rules listed in Table 1 will replace the existing SIP-approved
NSR program rules listed in Table 2, in their entirety. The MCAQD made
several revisions to its NSR program, including revisions for
addressing the rule deficiencies identified by the EPA in our final
conditional approval on April 5, 2019. The EPA's action on this SIP
submittal will update the Maricopa County portion of the Arizona SIP.

                                                       Table 2--MCAQD's Current SIP-Approved Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal  Register
       Regulation & rule No.               Rule title             State  effective date              SIP  approval date                 citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 11         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  June 18, 1982..................  47 FR 26382
 ``Alteration or Modification''.      Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 27         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Dust''.                            Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 29         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Emission''.                        Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 34         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Existing Source Performance        Definitions.
 Standards''.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 37 ``Fly   General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 Ash''.                               Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 39         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Fuel''.                            Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 42         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Fume''.                            Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 55         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Motor Vehicle''.                   Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 59 ``Non-  General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 Point Source''.                      Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 60         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Odors''.                           Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 64         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Organic Solvent''.                 Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 70         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Plume''.                           Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 80         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Smoke''.                           Definitions.
Regulation I, Rule 2, No. 91         General Provisions;     June 23, 1980..................  April 12, 1982.................  47 FR 15579
 ``Vapor''.                           Definitions.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 52           Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Dust'').                           Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 56           Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Emission'').                       Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 63           Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Existing Source Performance        Obtaining an
 Standards'').                        Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 70           Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Fuel'').                           Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 71 ``Fuel    Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 Burning Equipment'').                Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 74           Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Fume'').                           Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 103          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Motor Vehicle'').                  Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 114 ``Non-   Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 Point Source'').                     Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 122          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Photochemically Reactive           Obtaining an
 Solvent'').                          Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 123          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Plume'').                          Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 128          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Process'').                        Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 129          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Process Source'').                 Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.

Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 150          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Smoke'').                          Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 151          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Soot'') \2\.                       Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 160          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Supplementary Control System       Obtaining an
 (SCS)'').                            Installation Permit.
Rule 21, Section D.1 (AZ R9-3-101,   Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 Paragraph 166 ``Vapor'').            Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
                                      Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 167          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Vapor Pressure'').                 Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1  Permits and Fees;       October 25, 1982...............  August 10, 1988; Vacated;        53 FR 30224; 56 FR 3219
 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 168          Procedures for                                           restored on January 29, 1991.
 ``Visible Emissions'').              Obtaining an
                                      Installation Permit.
Regulation I, Rule 100 (except       General Provisions;     February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
 Sections 200.24, 200.73,             General Provisions
 200.104(c)).                         and Definitions.
Regulation II, Rule 200............  Permits and Fees;       February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
                                      Permit Requirements.
Regulation II, Rule 210............  Permits and Fees;       February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
                                      Title V Permit
                                      Provisions.
Regulation II, Rule 220............  Permits and Fees; Non-  February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
                                      Title V Permit
                                      Provisions.
Regulation II, Rule 240 (except      Permits and Fees;       February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
 Section 305).                        Federal Major New
                                      Source Review (NSR).
Regulation II, Rule 241............  Permits and Fees;       February 3, 2016...............  April 5, 2019..................  84 FR 13543
                                      Minor New Source
                                      Review (NSR).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The correct citation for the definition of ``Soot'' is Rule
21, Section D.1 (AZ R9-3-101, Paragraph 151), and not Paragraph 152
which was in the April 5, 2019 final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that include a pre-construction permit program for new or modified
stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as
required by sections 110(a)(2) of the CAA, and parts C and D of title I
of the CAA.
    The purpose of the MCAQD's NSR submittal, which includes Rules 100,
200, 210, 220, 230, 240, and 241, is to implement the County's
preconstruction permit program for new and modified minor sources, and
new and modified major stationary sources for areas designated
attainment and/or unclassifiable for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), or nonattainment for at least one NAAQS.
    Maricopa County is designated attainment and/or unclassifiable for
all sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NOX),
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and
carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. Maricopa County is also designated
attainment and/or unclassifiable for all ozone NAAQS outside of the
Phoenix-Mesa area, and the particulate matter less than 10 micrometers
(PM10) NAAQS for the Maricopa County area outside of the
Phoenix Planning Area.
    The Phoenix-Mesa, AZ area of Maricopa County is designated as a
Moderate nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and as a Marginal
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Additionally, the Phoenix
Planning Area of Maricopa County is designated as a Serious
nonattainment area for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. See 40
CFR 81.303.
    We present our evaluation under the CAA and the EPA's implementing
regulations applicable to SIP submittals and NSR permit programs in
general terms below. We provide a more detailed analysis in our TSD,
which is available in the docket for this proposed action.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What is the background for today's proposal?

    On April 5, 2019, the EPA finalized full approval of Rules 210,
220, 240, and 241, and conditional approval of Rules 100 and 200, into
the Arizona SIP. 84 FR 13543.\3\ We finalized conditional approval of
Rules 100 and 200 because we determined that, while they mostly
satisfied the statutory and regulatory requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the Act, the rules also contained
deficiencies that prevented full approval. The December 20, 2019
Submittal was submitted within one year of the April 5, 2019 final
action, in accordance with the requirements of CAA section 110(k)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On May 1, 2019, the EPA published a final rule to correct an
error in the regulatory text for the April 5, 2019 action. (See 84
FR 18392.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MCAQD made several revisions to Rules 100 and 200 to address
the deficiencies identified by the EPA, as well as minor revisions to
Rules 210, 220, 240, and 241 to address EPA

recommendations. The MCAQD also adopted new Rule 230. These revisions
are discussed in the TSD, which can be found in the docket for this
rule.

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    The EPA has reviewed the MCAQD rules listed in Table 1 for
compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section
110(a)(2), for the PSD program in part C of title I (section 165), and
for the nonattainment NSR programs in part D of title I (sections 172
and 173). The EPA also evaluated the rules for compliance with the CAA
requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. In
addition, the EPA evaluated the submitted rules for consistency with
the regulatory provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of New
Sources and Modifications) (i.e., 40 CFR 51.160-51.166) and 40 CFR
51.307.
    Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act require that each SIP or
revision to a SIP submitted by a state must be adopted after reasonable
notice and public hearing. In addition, section 110 of the Act requires
that SIP rules be enforceable.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires each SIP to include a
program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the SIP as necessary to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA's regulations at 40
CFR 51.160-51.164 provide general programmatic requirements to
implement this statutory mandate commonly referred to as the
``general'' or ``minor'' NSR program. These NSR program regulations
impose requirements for approval of state and local programs that are
more general in nature as compared to the specific statutory and
regulatory requirements for NSR permitting programs under parts C and D
of title I of the Act.
    Part C of title I of the Act, and the implementing regulations at
40 CFR 51.166, contain the requirements for states to establish
preconstruction permitting programs for the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality (PSD) in areas designated as attainment
and/or unclassifiable for the NAAQS. The PSD program requirements under
part C apply to major stationary sources and major modifications, as
those terms are defined in 40 CFR 51.166, at stationary sources located
within attainment and/or unclassifiable areas. The PSD requirements
apply to all regulated NSR pollutants, except those pollutants for
which an area has been designated as nonattainment.
    Part D of title I of the Act contains the general requirements for
areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS (section 172), referred to
as nonattainment NSR (NNSR), including preconstruction permit
requirements for new major sources and major modifications proposing to
construct in nonattainment areas (section 173). 40 CFR 51.165 sets
forth the EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP-approval of a
nonattainment NSR permit program.
    The protection of visibility requirements that apply to NSR
programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.307. This provision requires that
certain actions be taken in consultation with the local Federal Land
Manager if a new major source or major modification may have an impact
on visibility in any mandatory Federal Class I Area.
    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the Act, which
only applies in nonattainment areas, prohibits the modification of a
SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater
emission reductions of such air pollutant.
    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed discussion of the approval criteria.

C. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    The EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the
rule evaluation criteria described above. With respect to procedural
requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions
to a SIP be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public
hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation
included in the December 20, 2019 Submittal, we find that the MCAQD has
provided sufficient evidence of public notice, and an opportunity for
comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these
rules to the EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements, we have reviewed the
revisions to the submitted rules in accordance with the evaluation
criteria discussed above. These revisions included (1) rule changes
that address the deficiencies related to the conditional approval of
Rules 100 and 200; (2) new Rule 230; (3) new rule provisions in Rules
100 and 240; (4) deleted rule provisions; and (5) other general
revisions. These revisions are discussed below, and in greater detail
in the TSD for this rulemaking action.
Corrections to Deficiencies Identified in the Conditional Approval of
Rules 100 and 200
    On April 5, 2019, the EPA finalized conditional approval of Rules
100 and 200, as amended on February 3, 2016, because we determined
that, while they mostly satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part D of title I of the
Act, the rules also contained deficiencies that prevented full
approval. (See 84 FR 13543.) As part of the conditional approval, the
MCAQD and the ADEQ committed to address the deficiencies by providing
the EPA with a SIP revision within one year of the April 5, 2019 final
action. The December 20, 2019 Submittal addresses these deficiencies as
follows:
    1. The EPA determined that the definition of ``Good Engineering
Practice (GEP) Stack Height'' in Rule 200, Section 201 was inconsistent
with the definition for this term provided in 40 CFR 51.100(ii), and
therefore deficient.
    To address this deficiency the MCAQD deleted (1) the definition of
GEP stack height in Rule 200, Section 201; and (2) the stack height
procedures in Rule 240, Section 302.5 (Application Completeness) and
Section 306 (Stack Height and Dispersion Techniques). The MCAQD also
revised Rule 200, Section 314 (Stack Height Provisions) to add a
reference to 40 CFR 51.100 for determining GEP stack height. These
revisions correct the deficiency.
    2. The EPA determined that the MCAQD must provide a basis under 40
CFR 51.160(e) to demonstrate that regulation of the equipment (i.e.,
agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations) exempted in Rule
200, Section 305.1.c is not needed for the MCAQD's program to meet
federal NSR requirements for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or
review for compliance with the control strategy.
    To address this deficiency the MCAQD deleted the exemption in Rule
200, Section 305.1.c, and replaced it with a revised exemption in new
Section 305.2(i), which applies to fugitive emissions from agricultural
equipment used in normal farm operations. The revised rule provides
that agricultural equipment used in normal farm operations does not
include equipment that would otherwise require a permit under title V
of the Act, or equipment that is subject

to a standard under 40 CFR parts 60, 61 or 63. The revised exemption is
consistent with Arizona State law in the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)
49-480(A), 49-425, and 49-426(B) and with the ADEQ regulations in the
Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-302(C). These revisions correct
the deficiency.
    3. The EPA determined that Rule 200, Section 403.2 did not ensure
the continuity of the NSR terms and conditions when a Title V or Non-
Title V permit expired and was therefore deficient. The MCAQD added
Rule 200, Section 403.2(c), which states ``The terms and conditions of
installation permits issued before September 1, 1993, or in permits or
permit revisions issued under Rule 210 or Rule 220 of these rules and
authorizing the construction or modification of a stationary source,
remain federal applicable requirements unless modified or revoked by
the Control Officer.'' This provision is the same as the ADEQ's AAC
R18-2-303(B). This revision corrects the deficiency.
    4. The EPA determined that references to Appendix G (Incorporated
Materials) in certain provisions in Rules 100 and 200 were deficient
because Appendix G was neither included in the existing SIP nor was it
submitted by the MCAQD for EPA-approval in the SIP. The MCAQD removed
references to Appendix G, and instead cited the appropriate federal
regulations in the code of federal regulations in the Rule 100
definitions of ``AP-42'', ``Non-Precursor Compound'', ``Reference
Material'', and in Rule 100, Section 503 (Emission Statements Required
as Stated in the Act), and Rule 200, Section 314 (Stack Height
Provisions). These revisions correct the deficiency.
    5. The EPA determined that references to the Arizona Testing Manual
(ATM) in Rules 100 and 200 were deficient because they relied on
provisions that were not SIP-approved, and because the ATM is
significantly out of date and not appropriate to be relied upon as the
sole basis for testing procedures. The MCAQD removed these references
from the Rule 100 definition of ``Reference Method'', and from Rule
200, Section 408 (Testing Procedures). The MCAQD retained the Rule 100
definition of ``Arizona Testing Manual'', which is the same as the
ADEQ's AAC R18-2-101(17). These revisions correct the deficiency.
    6. The EPA determined that certain definitions that the MCAQD
proposed be removed from the approved SIP could not be removed without
further justification. In its December 20, 2019 Submittal, the MCAQD
provided adequate justifications for removing the following definitions
from Regulation I, Rule 2, and Regulation II, Rule 21, Section D.1, of
the SIP: ``Alternation or Modification'', ``Begin Actual
Construction'', ``Dust'', ``Emission'', ``Existing Source Performance
Standards'', ``Fly Ash'', ``Fuel'', ``Fuel Burning Equipment'',
``Fume'', ``Motor Vehicle'', ``Non-Point Source'', ``Odors'', ``Organic
Solvent'', ``Photochemically Reactive Solvent'', ``Plume'',
``Process'', ``Process Source'', ``Smoke'', ``Soot'', ``Supplementary
Control System (SCS)'', ``Vapor'', ``Vapor Pressure'', and ``Visible
Emissions''. In general, the MCAQD's justifications for removing these
definitions are because (a) the definition has been replaced by a new
definition in Rule 100, Section 200, (b) there are no references to the
defined term in the MCAQD's regulations, (c) the definition does not
support any SIP rules, (d) the definition is outdated and/or
substantively the same as a definition that was incorporated by
reference in Rule 240, or (e) the definition is a common term for which
the MCAQD will use the dictionary definition of the term. The EPA finds
that the removal of these definitions is acceptable.
New Rule 230
    Rule 230 is a new rule for General Permits. It allows the issuance
of General permits for a facility class that contains a large number of
sources that are similar in nature, have substantially similar
emissions, and would be subject to the same or substantially similar
requirements governing operations, emissions, monitoring, reporting, or
recordkeeping. The owner or operator of a new or modified source is
also required to comply with the applicable NSR requirements. As
explained in the TSD for this rulemaking, Rule 230 is consistent with
the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.
New Provisions in Rules 100 and 240
    The MCAQD added the following new definitions to Rule 100: ``Begin
Actual Construction'', ``Dust'', ``Emission'', ``Fuel'', ``Fume'',
``Gasoline'', ``Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)'', ``Minor NSR Modification
Threshold'', ``Modification'', ``Motor Vehicle'', ``Non-Road Internal
Combustion (IC) Engine'', ``Off-Specification Used Oil'', ``On-
Specification Used Oil'', ``Organic Solvent'', ``Plume'', ``Process'',
``Regulated Air Pollutant'', ``Seasonal Source'', ``Smoke'', ``Soot'',
``Used Oil'', ``Vapor'', ``Visible Emissions'', and ``Year.'' The MCAQD
also added ``Compliance Schedule for Newly Amended Rule Provisions'' in
Rule 100, Section 403. These revisions are consistent with the CAA and
the EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.
    The MCAQD also added new PSD program provisions in Rule 240.
Section 305.2 of Rule 240 requires all new and modified sources to meet
specific provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, as incorporated by reference.
Currently, the MCAQD implements a federal PSD permit program pursuant
to a delegation agreement under 40 CFR 52.21(u), which allows the MCAQD
to issue PSD permits, and to modify and extend existing PSD permits.
Normally, following SIP approval of a federal PSD permit program, any
existing PSD delegation agreement would be terminated. However, because
the MCAQD is prohibited under state law from regulating GHG emissions,
upon SIP approval of Rule 240, the EPA will terminate the existing PSD
delegation agreement and enter a new PSD delegation agreement limited
to the issuance of PSD permits that regulate GHG emissions. This will
allow the MCAQD to continue issuing complete PSD permits for all
sources under its jurisdiction. These changes are consistent with part
C of title I of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40
CFR 51.166.
Deleted Rule Provisions
    The MCAQD deleted certain redundant PSD-related definitions from
Rule 100, as they are now incorporated by reference in Rule 240,
Section 200. The EPA finds these deletions from Rule 100 acceptable.
    The MCAQD deleted the following rule provisions because they are
addressed in other rule provisions: (1) The definition of ``GEP Stack
Height'' from Rule 200, the stack height procedures from Rule 240,
Section 302.5, and the stack height and dispersion technique provisions
from Rule 240, Section 306; (2) the exemptions for trivial activities,
food processing equipment, general combustion equipment, surface
coating and printing equipment, solvent cleaning equipment, internal
combustion equipment, laboratories and pilot plants, storage and
distribution, and miscellaneous activities from Rule 200, Section 305;
(3) the Minor NSR Transition rule provision from Rule 200, Section 313;
(4) the emissions thresholds of 0.5 tons per year (tpy) of hazardous
air pollutants, and 2 tpy of any regulated air pollutant from Rule 200,
Section 305; (5) provisions concerning obtaining a permit prior to
renting or leasing a portable source from Rule 200, Section 410.3; (6)
certain

procedures for changes that do not require a Non-Title V Permit from
Rule 220, Section 404.3.e.; (7) the requirements for holding a public
hearing from Rule 241, Section 310; and (8) the source obligation
provision from Rule 241, Section 315. These requirements were moved to
other rules or are already addressed in existing rules. The EPA finds
these revisions acceptable.
Other General Rule Revisions
    The MCAQD made several other minor wording and administrative
changes to Rules 100, 200, 210, 220, 240, and 241. As discussed further
in our TSD, these rule revisions are acceptable.
    We are proposing to fully approve Rules 100, 200, 210, 220, 230,
240 and 241 as part of the MCAQD's general and NSR permitting programs
because we have determined that these rules satisfy the substantive
statutory and regulatory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act, parts C and D of title I of the Act, 40 CFR 51.160-51.166, and 40
CFR 51.307. Our TSD for this rulemaking contains a more detailed
evaluation.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the MCAQD Rules 100, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, and 241,
because they fulfill all relevant requirements. We are accepting
comments from the public on this proposal until March 25, 2021. If we
finalize this action as proposed, our action would be codified through
revisions to 40 CFR 52.120 (Identification of plan).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the MCAQD rules listed in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX
Office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the applicable criteria of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-02908 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P