[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30470-30475]
[FR Doc No: E9-14996]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770; FRL-8413-6]

Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
chlorantraniliprole in or on almonds; nut, tree, crop group 14, and
pistachios. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This
regulation also establishes time-limited rotational crop tolerances for
residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on cowpeas, forage and hay; field
peas, vines and hay; forage, fodder and straw of cereal grains, crop
group 16; grass forage, fodder and hay, crop group 17; leaves of root
and tuber vegetables, crop group 2, leeks, nongrass animal feeds
(forage, fodder, straw and hay), crop group 18; okra; onions, green;
onions, Welsh; peanuts, hay; shallots; soybeans, forage and hay;
strawberries and sugarcane, sugar. The time-limited tolerances expire
on April 25, 2010.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 26, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 25, 2009,
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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kable Bo Davis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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 those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of 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-2008-0770 in the subject line on the first page of your
submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before August 25, 2009.
    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 that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In the Federal Register of December 3, 2008 (73 FR 73640) (FRL-
8390-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8F7409) by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection,
1090 Elkton Road, Newark, DE 19711. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.628 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino) carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-pyrazole-
5-carboxamide, in or on almond hulls at 5.0 parts per million (ppm),
nut, tree, crop group 14 at 0.07 ppm and pistachios at 0.07 ppm. That
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection, the registrant, which is
available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
reduced the recommended tolerance of 0.07 ppm for nut, tree, group 14
and pistachios to 0.04 ppm. The reason for these changes are explained
in Unit IV.D.
    In the Federal Register of October 1, 2008 (73 FR 57040-57046)
(FRL-8382-4), EPA issued a proposed rule pursuant to sections 408(e) of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3).
The rule proposed that 40 CFR 180.628 be amended by establishing time-
limited tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues of
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)
carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide,
in or on cowpeas, forage and hay at 0.20 parts per million (ppm); field
peas, vines and hay at 0.20 ppm; forage, fodder and straw of cereal
grains, crop group 16 at 0.20 ppm, grass forage, fodder and hay, crop
group 17 at 0.20 ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables, crop group 2
at 0.20 ppm; leeks at 0.20 ppm; nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder,
straw and hay), crop group 18 at 0.20 ppm; okra at 0.70 ppm; onions,
green at 0.20 ppm; onions, Welsh at 0.20 ppm; peanuts, hay at 0.20 ppm;
shallots at 0.20 ppm; soybeans, forage and hay at 0.20 ppm;
strawberries at 1.2 ppm; and sugarcane, sugar at 0.20 ppm. The proposal
established a 60-day public comment period. There were no comments
received in response to the proposed rule.
    This final rule completes Agency action on both the petition from
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection, and EPA's
proposed rulemaking of October 1, 2008.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of chlorantraniliprole on almond, hulls at 5.0
ppm, nut, tree, group 14 at 0.04 ppm and pistachio at 0.04 ppm. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Chlorantraniliprole is not genotoxic, neurotoxic, immunotoxic,
carcinogenic, or teratogenic. Chlorantraniliprole has been found to
have low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of
exposure and has little to no irritation effect on the eyes or skin.
Additionally, chlorantraniliprole is not a dermal sensitizer. There was
only one toxicity study in the toxicity database that indicated that
chlorantraniliprole yielded an adverse effect (18-month oral/mouse).
This study was used to establish a point of departure based on
hepatocellular effects for chronic risk.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by chlorantraniliprole as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Chlorantraniliprole (DPX-E2Y45). Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on the Tree Nut Group and
Pistachios and for Increases in the Established Tolerances for Pome
Fruits, Stone Fruits, Grapes and Raisins due to the Removal of Adjuvant
Restrictions from the Label for Pome Fruits, Stone

Fruits, and Grapes, page 21 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the NOAEL in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the LOAEL or a Benchmark Dose (BMD)
approach is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety
factors (UFs) are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account
uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data
to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the
human population as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for
acute and chronic dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water
exposure to the pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD)
and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are
calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-
term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure
that the margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the
Level of Concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for chlorantraniliprole
used for human risk assessment can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Chlorantraniliprole (DPX-E2Y45). Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on the Tree Nut Group and
Pistachios and for Increases in the Established Tolerances for Pome
Fruits, Stone Fruits, Grapes and Raisins due to the Removal of Adjuvant
Restrictions from the Label for Pome Fruits, Stone Fruits, and Grapes,
page 10 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0770.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to chlorantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing chlorantraniliprole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.628. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
chlorantraniliprole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
chlorantraniliprole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey
of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food,
EPA assumed all foods for which there are tolerances were treated and
contain tolerance-level residues.
    iii. Cancer. Chlorantraniliprole was classified as ``Not likely to
be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on evidence showing no treatment-
related tumors in the submitted chronic and oncogenicity studies in
rats and mice, and subchronic studies in mice, dogs, and rats, and no
mutagenic concerns in the genotoxicity studies. Therefore, an exposure
assessment to evaluate cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for chlorantraniliprole. Tolerance level residues
and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for chlorantraniliprole in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of chlorantraniliprole. 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
chlorantraniliprole for acute exposures are estimated to be 26.862
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.06 ppb for ground
water. The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
chlorantraniliprole for chronic exposures are 3.650 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water and 1.06 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model.
    For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
value 3.650 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Chlorantraniliprole is currently registered for the following uses
that could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass and ornamental
plants. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following
assumptions. Although residential exposure could occur, due to the lack
of toxicity identified for short- and intermediate-term durations via
relevant routes of exposure, no risk is expected from these exposures.
Additional information on residential exposure assumptions can be found
at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0275, pages 36
through 37).
    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 chlorantraniliprole to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and chlorantraniliprole does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
chlorantraniliprole 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 website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no effects on
fetal growth or post-natal development up to the limit dose of 1,000
milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) in rats or rabbits in the
developmental or 2-generation reproduction studies. Additionally, there
were no treatment related effects on the numbers of litters, fetuses
(live or dead), resorptions, sex ratio, or post-implantation loss and
no effects on fetal body weights, skeletal ossification, and external,
visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for chlorantraniliprole is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that chlorantraniliprole is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that chlorantraniliprole results in
increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground
and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
chlorantraniliprole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by chlorantraniliprole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
chlorantraniliprole is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
chlorantraniliprole from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD
for (children 1-2 years) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
chlorantraniliprole is not expected.
    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).
    Although short-term residential exposure could occur with the use
of chlorantraniliprole, no toxicological effects resulting from short-
term dosing were observed. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from food and water and will not be greater than the chronic
aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Although intermediate-term residential exposure could result from
the use of chlorantraniliprole, no toxicological effects resulting from
intermediate-term dosing were observed. Therefore, the aggregate risk
is the sum of the risk from food and water and will not be greater than
the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Chlorantraniliprole
has been classified as a ``not likely human carcinogen.'' It is not
expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to chlorantraniliprole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromotagraphy/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MC) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. 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>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no international residue limits that affect the Agency's
recommendations at this time. There are no Canadian, CODEX or Mexican
maximum residue limits (MRLs) for chlorantraniliprole that exists at
this time.

C. Response to Comments

    There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing
or proposed rule.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has determined that the appropriate tolerance level for the
tree nut group and pistachios is 0.04 ppm. Residue field trial data for
chloroantraniliprole on almonds and pecans showed that the highest
observed residue level on nutmeats was 0.016 ppm. Almonds and pecans
are representative commodities for the tree nut group and pistachios.
Evaluation of these field trial data with EPA's statistical modeling
procedures for field residue data indicates that a tolerance of 0.04
ppm will be sufficient for the labeled uses on tree nuts and
pistachios.
    The petitioner has requested a tolerance of 0.07 ppm for these
commodities. A higher value was requested because the field trials were
conducted without use of an adjuvant but the petitioner now seeks
approval of a pesticide label allowing the use of

adjuvants. Adjuvants may increase residue levels of the pesticide by
altering the pattern of deposition, retention and penetration. In the
case of chlorantraniliprole, several supervised side-by-side studies
conducted on grape, peach, plum, and cherry with chlorantraniliprole
alone and in the presence of an adjuvant, methylated seed oils or non-
ionic surfactants showed that the adjuvants increased the level of
chlorantraniliprole by an average factor of 2.1. EPA does not believe,
however, that use of an adjuvant would increase chlorantraniliprole
residues in nutmeats from the tree nut crop group and pistachios
because these foods have very limited exposure to an applied non-
systemic chemical such as chlorantraniliprole due to the physical
barrier, known as the exocarp (i.e., husk or hull), surrounding the
edible commodity. Thus, the Agency does not expect any increase in
residue with the use of an adjuvant on the tree nut group or pistachios
and EPA has revised the requested tolerance amount for these
commodities downward to 0.04 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)
carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide,
in or on almond, hulls at 5.0 ppm, nut, trees, group 14 at 0.04 ppm and
pistachios at 0.04 ppm. In addition, time-limited rotational crop
tolerances are established for residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on
cowpeas, forage and hay at 0.20 parts per million (ppm); field peas,
vines and hay at 0.20 ppm; forage, fodder and straw of cereal grains,
crop group 16 at 0.20 ppm, grass forage, fodder and hay, crop group 17
at 0.20 ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables, crop group 2 at 0.20
ppm; leeks at 0.20 ppm; nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw
and hay), crop group 18 at 0.20 ppm; okra at 0.70 ppm; onions, green at
0.20 ppm; onions, Welsh at 0.20 ppm; peanuts, hay at 0.20 ppm; shallots
at 0.20 ppm; soybeans, forage and hay at 0.20 ppm; strawberries at 1.2
ppm; and sugarcane, sugar at 0.20 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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) (Public Law 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).
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed action will not
have significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Establishing a pesticide tolerance or an exemption from
the requirement of a pesticide tolerance is, in effect, the removal of
a regulatory restriction on pesticide residues in food and thus such an
action will not have any negative economic impact on any entities,
including small entities.

VII. 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: June 11, 2009.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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 180.628 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a), and revising paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.628  Chlorantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls........................................                5.0
                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14..................................               0.04
                                * * * * *
Pistachio............................................               0.04
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. Time-limited tolerances are
established for indirect or inadvertent residues of the insecticide
chlorantraniliprole (3-bromo- N -[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide) in or on the following commodities. The tolerances will
expire and are revoked on the dates specified in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/
             Commodity              Parts per million   revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18...               0.20           04/10/10
Cowpea, forage....................               0.20           04/10/10
Cowpea, hay.......................               0.20           04/10/10
Field pea, hay....................               0.20           04/10/10
Field pea, vine...................               0.20           04/10/10
Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and                0.20           04/10/10
 straw, group 16..................
Grass, forage, fodder and hay,                   0.20           04/10/10
 group 17.........................
Leek..............................               0.20           04/10/10
Okra..............................               0.70           04/10/10
Onion, green......................               0.20           04/10/10
Onion, Welsh......................               0.20           04/10/10
Peanut, hay.......................               0.20           04/10/10
Shallot...........................               0.20           04/10/10
Soybean, forage...................               0.20           04/10/10
Soybean, hay......................               0.20           04/10/10
Strawberry........................               1.20           04/10/10
Sugarcane.........................               0.20           04/10/10
Vegetable, leaves of root and                    0.20           04/10/10
 tuber, group 2...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E9-14996 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 71007]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1354-081]

 Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Availability of
Supplemental Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations (18 CFR part 380), Commission staff prepared a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (SEA), to supplement the Final EA that was
issued on February 19, 2010 regarding Pacific Gas & Electric Company's
(PG&E) proposal to perform Commission-required seismic remediation work
at Crane Valley Dam, part of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project.
The Crane Valley Project occupies approximately 738 acres of federal
lands within the Sierra National Forest, and is located approximately
40 miles northeast of the city of Fresno in Madera County, California.
PG&E is currently performing the seismic remediation work and
supporting activities analyzed in the February 19, 2010 Final EA.
    PG&E is proposing two new contingency actions that are necessary to
ensure that the seismic work at Crane Valley Dam can be completed in a
timely manner. First, PG&E proposes to increase the amount of imported
rock fill hauled from off-site quarries to ensure an adequate supply of
quality rock for completion of the work. Second, PG&E proposes to
install, and operate on an as-needed basis, a primary bypass diversion
to pass water around the dam to assist in reservoir level control
during work on the upstream face of the dam, as well as a minimum flow
bypass diversion to ensure continuation of required minimum flow
releases.
    The SEA examines the environmental effects of PG&E's proposed
contingency actions and resource protection and mitigation plans that
PG&E would follow in accordance with consultation with federal and
state resource agencies, and also recommends further measures to
minimize any environmental effects. In the SEA, staff concludes that
the proposed contingency actions, compliance with the resource
protection and mitigation plans, and the recommended measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the SEA is available for review at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number (P-1354) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER> (for TTY).
    For further information on this notice, please contact B. Peter
Yarrington at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29541 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41405-41411]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0097; EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0199; EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0200;
FRL-10011-90-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Shoreline
Sheboygan, WI Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the
Shoreline Sheboygan County, Wisconsin area is attaining the 2008
primary and secondary ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), and is approving a request from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) to redesignate the area to attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS because the request meets the statutory requirements
for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is approving, as a
revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP), the State's
plan for maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2032 in the Shoreline
Sheboygan area. EPA finds adequate and is approving Wisconsin's 2025
and 2032 volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the
Shoreline Sheboygan area. EPA is also approving Wisconsin's VOC
reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP revisions. Finally,
EPA is approving the Wisconsin SIP as meeting the applicable base year
inventory requirement, emission statement requirements, VOC RACT
requirements, motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program
requirements, and NOX RACT requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0097, Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0199, and
Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0200. All documents in the dockets are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays and facility closures due to COVID 19. We recommend that you
telephone Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule approves the February 11, 2020 and April 1, 2020
submissions from Wisconsin requesting redesignation of the Shoreline
Sheboygan area to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The
background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's proposal,
dated May 13, 2020 (85 FR 28550). In that rulemaking, we noted that,
under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
attained in an area when the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration (i.e., the design
value) is equal to or less than 0.075 parts per million (ppm), when
truncated after the thousandth decimal place, at all ozone monitoring
sites in the area. (See 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.)
The level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is often expressed as 75 parts per
billion (ppb). Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas
to attainment if complete, quality-assured data show that the area has
attained the standard and the area meets the other CAA redesignation
requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The proposed rule

provides a detailed discussion of how Wisconsin has met these CAA
requirements and EPA's rationale for approving the redesignation
request and related SIP submissions.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2017-2019 show that the area has attained the 2008
ozone standard, and EPA has determined that the attainment is due to
permanent and enforceable measures. In the maintenance plan submitted
for the area, Wisconsin has demonstrated that compliance with the ozone
standard will be maintained in the area through 2032. As also discussed
in the proposed rule, Wisconsin has adopted 2025 and 2032 VOC and
NOX MVEBs for the area that are supported by Wisconsin's
maintenance demonstration. Finally, EPA is approving the VOC RACT SIP
revisions included in Wisconsin's February 11, 2020 and April 1, 2020
submittals, which include Administrative Order AM-20-02 for Kieffer &
Co. Inc. and Administrative Order AM-20-03 for Kohler Power Systems.
With these approvals of Wisconsin's SIP submissions, EPA finds that all
SIP requirements applicable to redesignation are fully approved.
    Per the CAA, upon the effective date of this redesignation,
nonattainment area requirements cease to apply to this area. More
specifically, the requirements to submit certain planning SIPs related
to attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements (the
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) requirement of section
172(c)(1) of the CAA, the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and
attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and
182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA), are no longer applicable to the area and
cease to apply. See 40 CFR 51.1118.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    Public comments on the May 13, 2020 proposed rule were due by June
12, 2020. During the comment period EPA received three comments in
support of our action, one comment that was not relevant to our action,
as well as two adverse comments. EPA thanks the commenters for their
comments. Summaries of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are
provided below.
    Comment 1: A member of the public shared concerns regarding the
health effects of ozone. The commenter lists health problems and asks
whether these problems are occurring in Sheboygan County, and whether
any occurrence of these problems could be related to ozone. The
commenter states a belief that ozone standards will continue to
decrease, and notes that the American Lung Association has supported a
standard of 60 ppb. The commenter states that the design value for the
Shoreline Sheboygan area is 75 ppb, which ``can't get any closer'' to
the level of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at 75 ppb. The commenter references
the 2015 ozone NAAQS which is set at a level of 70 ppb, alleges that
``implementation has been postponed by lawsuits and EPA is dragging its
feet,'' and raises concerns that redesignation of the Shoreline
Sheboygan area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would diminish efforts to
attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The commenter states that Sheboygan County
needs to do a comprehensive health study, which would motivate
stakeholders to collaborate in achieving greater reductions in ozone
levels. Lastly, the commenter congratulates the Sheboygan County
business community for ``not adding to most of the bad ozone that comes
from out of state,'' but shares concerns that not enough attention is
being paid to health issues.
    Response 1: The issues raised by this commenter are largely beyond
the scope of this action, in which EPA is evaluating the State's
request to redesignate the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under the
criteria at CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    The requirement for EPA to periodically review the NAAQS, and to
update those standards as necessary, is provided under sections 108 and
109 of the CAA. As part of the NAAQS review process, EPA conducts an
analysis of available science, including key science judgements that
inform the development of risk and exposure assessments. Resulting from
this process, EPA has promulgated progressively more protective
standards for ground-level ozone. On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by strengthening the level of the primary and
secondary standards to 75 ppb (73 FR 16435), and on October 26, 2015,
EPA further revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by strengthening the level
of the primary and secondary standards to 70 ppb (80 FR 65292). In this
action EPA is not reevaluating our March 27, 2008 and October 26, 2015
actions under CAA sections 108 and 109, in which we reviewed available
science and revised the ozone standards to levels determined by the
Administrator to be protective of public health.
    Likewise, the commenter's concerns regarding implementation and
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS are not relevant to this
redesignation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA also disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS ``has
been postponed by lawsuits and EPA is dragging its feet.'' On December
6, 2018, EPA published implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, including requirements for attainment demonstrations and
programs such as nonattainment new source review (NNSR) (83 FR 62998).
EPA is continuing to implement the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to the
requirements set forth in that rulemaking, including in the Sheboygan
County nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which covers the
identical geographic area as the Shoreline Sheboygan area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Requirements appropriate for nonattainment areas, such as
NNSR, will continue to apply in the area because the area will retain
its nonattainment designation for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The commenter's inquiry about whether health problems they've
experienced are related to ozone pollution is also beyond the scope of
this action, which focuses only on whether the Shoreline Sheboygan area
has met the requirements for redesignation under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E).
    Finally, EPA reiterates that according to 40 CFR part 50, the 2008
ozone NAAQS is attained when the design value in an area is equal to or
less than 75 ppb. Although the commenter asserts that the Shoreline
Sheboygan area's design value of 75 ppb ``can't get any closer'' to the
standard, such a design value nevertheless meets the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA.
    Comment 2: Sheboygan Ozone Reduction Alliance (SORA), a citizen
group focused on reducing air pollution and advocating for public
health, provided two reasons for opposing this action.
    First, SORA contends that WDNR has failed to demonstrate that
reductions in emissions were responsible for reductions in Sheboygan
County ozone concentrations. The commenter notes that WDNR chose 2011
and 2017 as the years to be used for nonattainment year and attainment
year emissions inventories, and the commenter quantifies that between
2011 and 2017, NOX emissions in the area decreased by 48%
and VOC emissions in the area decreased by 15%. For the years 2008
through 2019, the commenter presents a table of design values for the
area, as

well as the number of days each year that the daily maximum 8-hour
average in the area was above the level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
commenter contends that between 2011 and 2017, ozone concentrations did
not decrease proportionally with emissions reductions. Further, the
commenter presents a table of the design values for the ten 3-year
periods occuring between 2008 through 2019, and notes that none of the
design values for the five 3-year periods occuring between 2011 and
2017 show attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenter writes that
``although the 2017-2019 design value appears to meet the 2008 NAAQS,
two of the years used for that design value, 2018 and 2019, are outside
of the scope of the emission inventory years provided in the request,''
and contends that because WDNR did not provide inventories for 2018 or
2019, it is not possible to determine that the 2017-2019 design value
was a result of permanent and enforceable reductions. The commenter
also notes that WDNR's submission included the statement ``Sheboygan
County sources have little to no ability to influence ozone
concentrations at monitors in the county,'' and contends that WNDR
therefore does not demonstrate that the improvement in air quality is
based on permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. The commenter
suggests that WDNR consider expanding the nonattainment area, in order
to manage the regional emissions contributing to violations of the
ozone standards in Sheboygan County and along Lake Michigan.
    Second, SORA contends that ozone season meteorology deviated
significantly from historical averages in 2019 and was likely the
primary contributor to reduced ozone concentrations during the 2019
ozone season. Specifically, the commenter contends that ``the 2019
ozone season had important meteorological trends that deviated from
historical averages for wind direction and temperature.'' The commenter
notes that high ozone concentrations at the Kohler Andrae monitor are
``almost always'' associated with southerly winds originating from the
south-southwest to southeast, and contends that the average wind
direction in 2019 differed from the average wind direction in 2009
through 2017. According to the commenter, an increased frequency of
winds from the north and northeast accounts for a drop in average wind
direction, and this caused fewer days in 2019 with winds favorable to
ozone formation. Further, the commenter notes that warm temperatures
are associated with high ozone formation at the Kohler Andrae monitor,
and contends that average summer temperature in 2019 was below the
2008-2018 average. The commenter suggests that lower average
temperatures indicate fewer days with temperatures conducive to
increased ozone formation, and notes that WDNR's submittal shows a
correlation between temperature and ozone concentrations. To illustrate
these points, the commenter includes four charts displaying data for
wind direction and temperature. The commenter concludes these points by
contending that unusual meteorology is ``likely the significant
contributor to reduced ozone concentrations'' at the Kohler Andrae
monitor, without which the design value would have been higher. Lastly,
the commenter states that ozone problems will not be solved through
redesignation, suggests that regional solutions are required, and hopes
that coordinated cooperation between stakeholders will lead to improved
air quality.
    Response 2: As discussed below, EPA finds that approval of
Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Shoreline Sheboygan area is
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
    First, EPA does not agree that attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in Sheboygan County was not due to permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions, per CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).\1\ As stated in EPA's
long-standing guidance on redesignations (see ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992), we interpret this provision to mean that
``[a]ttainment resulting from temporary reductions in emission rates
(e.g., reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic
conditions) or unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an
air quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.'' Calcagni Memo at 4. EPA's guidance instructs that the
showing under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) ``should estimate the
percent reduction . . . achieved from Federal measures . . . as well as
control measures that have been adopted and implemented by the State,''
and that overall, we must be able to ``reasonably attribute the
improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are permanent
and enforceable.'' Id. This cataloguing of permanent and enforceable
state and Federal measures, along with the estimated reductions in
precursor emissions that cause ozone pollution which are attributable
to each measure over the relevant time period, has long been EPA's
methodology to demonstrate compliance with CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and has been upheld in court. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
774 F.3d 383, 393-95 (7th Cir. 2014). As noted by the court in Sierra
Club, ``the CAA does not require EPA to prove causation to an absolute
certainty. Rather in accord with its own internal guidance . . . EPA
had to `reasonably attribute' the drops in ozone to permanent and
enforceable measures. Only if EPA's path cannot `be reasonably
discerned,' or if EPA relied on factors `that Congress did not intend
it to consider' or `fail[ed] to consider an important aspect of the
problem,' will we conclude that EPA acted arbitrarily or
capriciously.'' Id. at 396.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The commenter states that they do not support EPA's proposal
to redesignate the Sheboygan County area because WDNR has failed to
demonstrate that CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) is met. However, as
that statutory provision clearly states, the Administrator may not
promulgate a redesignation of a nonattainment area unless ``the
Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable implementation plan and applicable
Federal air pollutant control regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions.'' On its face, the statute permits EPA to
not only consider Wisconsin's submittal and demonstration, but also
any other information the Agency has regarding emission reductions
in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA applied the same methodology in reviewing Wisconsin's request
as it did for the areas at issue in the Sierra Club case, and as it has
for the many redesignated areas across the country over the last three
decades. In our proposal, we discussed at length the various state and
Federal promulgated measures and the estimated precursor emission
reductions impacts attributable to each of those measures. 85 FR at
28555-58. The commenter does not dispute the permanence or
enforceability of any of the measures listed by EPA, nor do they refute
that the measures obtained the estimated reductions cited by EPA. The
commenter's sole focus was on WDNR's comparison of emission inventories
for 2011 (a nonattainment year) and 2017 (an attainment year) for
sources within the Shoreline Sheboygan area. To the extent that the
commenter is suggesting that the fact that ozone concentrations did not
decline proportionally to the emissions reductions implemented in the
Sheboygan County area means that those reductions had no impact on the
area's attainment, we disagree. Ozone concentrations do not typically
decline

proportionally with emissions reductions to both precursors, because
ozone formation chemistry, which involves photochemical reactions of
precursor species, is a complex nonlinear process. Therefore,
reductions of both NOX and VOC precursor emissions are not
likely to result in a proportional reduction in ozone. However,
selectively reducing the key anthropogenic precursor emissions that are
driving ozone formation, generally results in reduced ozone. As noted
by the commenter, meteorology and emissions of ozone precursors from
outside the nonattainment area both impact ozone concentrations in the
Sheboygan County area and can cause some variability from year to year.
But the influence of these factors does not negate the fact that the
permanent and enforceable precursor emission reductions from stationary
and mobile sources in Wisconsin and upwind states that contribute ozone
to the Sheboygan County area--all of which we pointed to in our
proposal--have in the aggregate caused the area to come into attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    We also find no fault with Wisconsin's use of 2017 emissions within
the nonattainment area (i.e., the attainment inventory) for purposes of
illustrating the reduction in emissions in the area over time (from
2011 to 2017). We do not agree with the commenter that ``it is not
possible to determine that the 2017-2019 design value was the result of
emission reductions'' because Wisconsin did not provide emission
inventories for 2018 and 2019. The State's selection of one year of
emissions during a design value period indicating nonattainment and one
year of emissions during a design value period indicating attainment
showed quite simply that emissions had decreased substantially within
the area during that time period.
    We do not agree with the commenter that it is appropriate or
necessary to expand the boundaries of the Shoreline Sheboygan area in
order to manage regional ozone pollution impacts along the shoreline of
Lake Michigan. Expanding nonattainment areas and imposing the
requirements that accompany a nonattainment area designation are not
the only tools to achieve emission reductions under the CAA; CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the good neighbor provision,
requires states to eliminate emissions that significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another state. We
acknowledge that the Shoreline Sheboygan area's ozone concentrations
are impacted by emissions from upwind states. WDNR's analysis includes
source apportionment modeling showing that, for anthropogenic emissions
within modeled source regions, upwind sources in Illinois contribute
the largest share of emissions. Under the authority of the good
neighbor provision, EPA has required emission reductions from Illinois
and other upwind states to address contribution to the Shoreline
Sheboygan area in regional interstate transport rulemakings such as the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the CSAPR Update. The CSAPR
Update, which took effect in 2017 (i.e. the beginning of the 3-year
period during which the Shoreline Sheboygan area began monitoring
attainment) was estimated to result in a 20% reduction in ozone season
NOX emissions from electric generating units in the eastern
United States. In addition, Wisconsin's submittal shows that between
2011 and 2017, NOX emissions from the multistate Chicago
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS decreased by 33%, and VOC
emissions from the Chicago area decreased by 18%. Much of this
reduction is likely attributable to the fact that the Chicago area is
itself a nonattainment area, subject to the same or similar control
requirements as the Shoreline Sheboygan area, which would further limit
any efficacy of expanding the Shoreline Sheboygan area.
    Second, EPA disagrees that unusual ozone season meteorology is the
``likely significant contributor'' to the Sheboygan Shoreline area's
attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Similarly, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion that meteorology in 2019, specifically,
significantly ``deviated from historical averages for wind direction
and temperature.'' Meteorology's impact on ozone formation and the
variability that that can cause in ozone concentrations from year to
year is expressly accounted for in EPA's form of the NAAQS. Attainment
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, like the 1997 ozone NAAQS before it, is
measured by averaging the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average concentrations over a 3-year period. In our rulemaking
promulgating the 1997 ozone NAAQS, EPA noted the ``lack of year-to-year
stability'' inherent to the prior 1979 ozone NAAQS, and determined that
a form including a 3-year average would ``provide some insulation from
the impacts of extreme meteorological events that are conducive to
ozone formation.'' (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997). Similarly, when EPA
revised the NAAQS in 2008, we recognized ``that it is important to have
a form that is stable and insulated from the impacts of extreme
meteorological events that are conducive to ozone formation. Such
instability can have the effect of reducing public health protection,
because frequent shifting in and out of attainment due of
meteorological conditions can disrupt an area's ongoing implementation
plans and associated control programs. Providing more stability is one
of the reasons that EPA moved to a concentration-based form in 1997.''
(73 FR 16435, March 27, 2008). We therefore observe that as a general
matter, some year-to-year variation in meteorology is expected, and
that EPA designed the form of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to accommodate that
variability.
    We do not think that lower temperatures in 2019 was the cause of
the Shoreline Sheboygan area's attainment. The commenter's own analysis
shows that the average summer temperature across the years 2008 through
2018 was 61.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and the 2019 summer temperature was
60.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Rather than indicating that 2019 was an
outlier year in terms of temperature, the commenter's data shows that
2019 was a very typical year in terms of summer temperatures. According
to the commenter's analysis, the average summer temperature in 2019 was
only the third lowest out of 11 years. Further, EPA is determining that
the Shoreline Sheboygan area is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on
data from the 2017-2019 period; as shown in the commenter's analysis,
2017 and 2018 were among the five warmest out of 11 years. As discussed
above, EPA designed the form of the 2008 ozone NAAQS to accommodate
year-to-year variation in meteorology, including variability between
relatively cooler years and relatively warmer years.
    In terms of wind direction, we acknowledge that southerly winds can
play a role on high ozone days in the Sheboygan Shoreline area. But it
is important to keep in mind that high ozone cannot form in the absence
of precursor emissions. The commenter contends that in 2019, the
average hourly wind direction at the Kohler Andrae site was 173
degrees, compared to the average hourly wind direction of 190 degrees
for six other years including 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2017.
Annual average hourly wind direction is not a meaningful parameter to
consider when analyzing high ozone episodes, particularly at the Kohler
Andrae site which is impacted by highly variable wind direction and
lake breezes, because it does not narrow in on wind

direction during the specific time periods that are contemporaneous
with high ozone. Further, wind direction alone is not a meaningful
parameter to consider in analyzing high ozone since it excludes other
important factors such as emissions, wind speed, atmospheric boundary
layer height, temperature inversion, etc. WDNR's February 11, 2020
submittal (available in the docket for this rulemaking) includes a
statistical study, known as a Classification and Regression Tree (CART)
analysis, conducted by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) on ozone data from the Shoreline Sheboygan area. LADCO's CART
analysis groups high ozone day data (i.e., over 50 ppb) based on
meteorological similarity, and shows that for every group, ozone levels
at the Kohler Andrae monitor have decreased over the 14-year period
from 2005-2018. Although highest ozone concentrations typically
occurred on days which experienced southerly winds and high
temperatures, those days also experienced the steepest declines in
ozone concentrations over the 14-year period. LADCO's CART analysis
shows that when the influence of meteorological variability is largely
removed, whether it is favorable or unfavorable meteorology, ozone
concentrations declined regardless, indicating that the downward trend
in ozone levels is attributable to reductions in precursor emissions.
Given the results of the LADCO analysis combined with the reasons
outlined above pertaining to 2019 meteorology as well as the form of
the NAAQS, EPA disagrees with the commenter's contention that unusual
meteorology is the primary cause of attaining ozone concentrations at
the Kohler Andrae monitor. Rather, EPA concludes that attainment is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in precursor emissions from
within the Shoreline Sheboygan area and from upwind areas elsewhere in
Wisconsin and in other states during the relevant time period.
    Lastly, EPA acknowledges the commenter's assertions that ozone
problems will not be solved through redesignations, that regional
solutions are required, and that coordinated cooperation between
stakeholders may lead to improved air quality. The Sheboygan County
area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will retain its nonattainment
designation, and EPA will continue to address ozone problems along Lake
Michigan through implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA also
continues to implement programs addressing regional and interstate
transport of NOX, such as CSAPR. Finally, EPA encourages the
commenter to remain engaged with stakeholders in the effort to protect
human health and the environment.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is determining that the Shoreline Sheboygan nonattainment area
is attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, based on quality-assured and
certified monitoring data for 2017-2019. EPA is approving Wisconsin's
2011 base year emissions inventory, emission statement certification
SIP, VOC RACT SIP, I/M certification SIP, and NOX RACT
certification SIP, and is determining that the area meets the
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.
EPA is thus changing the legal designation of the Shoreline Sheboygan
area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is
also approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP, the State's
maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep
the Shoreline Sheboygan area in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
through 2032. EPA finds adequate and is approving the newly-established
2025 and 2032 MVEBs for the Shoreline Sheboygan area. Finally, EPA is
approving the VOC RACT SIP revisions included in Wisconsin's February
11, 2020 and April 1, 2020 submittals.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become
effective immediately upon publication. The immediate effective date
for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and section
553(d)(3).
    Section 553(d)(1) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . a substantive rule which grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' The purpose of this provision
is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed.
Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting
legislative history). However, when the agency grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. EPA has
determined that this rule relieves a restriction because this rule
permanently relieves the state of the requirement to submit certain
planning SIPs, such as an attainment demonstration and associated RACM,
RFP plans, contingency measures, and other planning elements related to
attainment.
    Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause.'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes
effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630
(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099,
1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule
effective immediately because this rule does not create any new
regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to
prepare before the rule takes effect. This rule approves into the SIP
the VOC RACT SIP revisions included in Wisconsin's February 11, 2020
and April 1, 2020 submittals, which include Administrative Order AM-20-
02 for Kieffer & Co. Inc. and Administrative Order AM-20-03 for Kohler
Power Systems. These Administrative Orders were signed on February 4,
2020 and February 28, 2020, respectively, and have been effective and
enforceable since the dates of signature. The two affected sources,
therefore, do not require time to adjust. On balance, EPA finds
affected parties would benefit from the immediate suspension of the
requirement to submit certain planning SIPs, instead of delaying by 30
days the suspension of this requirement.
    For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1) and U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on
the date of publication of these actions.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Wisconsin
Administrative Orders described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. EPA has made, and will continue

to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: July 1, 2020.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Title 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (139) On April 1, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted requests to incorporate Administrative Order AM-20-
02 for Kieffer & Co. Inc. and Administrative Order AM-20-03 for Kohler
Power Systems into the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
orders establish, through permanent and enforceable emission limits and
other requirements, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
equivalency demonstrations for the facilities located in Sheboygan
County, Wisconsin.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Administrative Order AM-20-02, issued by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources on February 4, 2020, to the Kieffer &
Co. Inc. facility located in Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
    (B) Administrative Order AM-20-03, issued by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources on February 28, 2020, to the Kohler
Power Systems facility located in Mosel, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (mm) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

    (mm) Redesignation. Approval--On February 11, 2020, Wisconsin
submitted a request to redesignate the Shoreline Sheboygan County area
to attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. As part of the
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section
175 maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in eight years as
required by the Clean Air Act. The ozone maintenance plan also
establishes 2025 and 2032 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for
the area. The 2025 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are 0.50
tons per hot summer day for VOC and 1.00 tons per hot summer day for
NOX. The 2032 MVEBs for the Inland Sheboygan County area are
0.36 tons per hot summer day for VOC and 0.77 tons per hot summer day
for NOX.
* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. In Sec.  81.350, the table entitled ``Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' is amended by revising the entry for
``Shoreline Sheboygan County, WI'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

                                       Wisconsin--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Designation                       Classification
             Designated area              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date \1\           Type             Date \1\            Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Shoreline Sheboygan County, WI \2\ \5\...       7/10/2020  Attainment......
    Sheboygan County (part):
        Inclusive and east of the
         following roadways going from
         the northern county boundary to
         the southern county boundary:
         Highway 43, Wilson Lima Road,
         Minderhaud Road, County Road KK/
         Town Line Road, N 10th Street,
         County Road A S/Center Avenue,
         Gibbons Road, Hoftiezer Road,
         Highway 32, Palmer Road/Smies
         Road/Palmer Road, Amsterdam Road/
         County Road RR, Termaat Road.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\5\ Attainment date is extended to July 20, 2019 for both Inland Sheboygan County, WI, and Shoreline Sheboygan
  County, WI, nonattainment areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-14691 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58451-58452]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0755]

Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays Within the Fifth Coast Guard
District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for fireworks at
The Wharf DC on October 4, 2022, to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Fireworks
Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the safety
zone for this event in Washington, DC. During the enforcement period,
the operator of any vessel in the safety zone must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the
location identified as item (1) of table 2 to paragraph (h)(2) from 8
p.m. until 10 p.m. on October 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email MST2 Courtney Perry, Sector
Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard:
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected]. C

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
regulation 33 CFR 165.506 for fireworks at The Wharf DC from 8 p.m. to
10 p.m. on October 4, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our
regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard
District, Sec.  165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for
the fireworks show in item (1) of table 2 to paragraph (h)(2). The
safety zone encompasses portions of the Washington Channel in the Upper
Potomac River. As reflected in Sec.  165.506(d), during the enforcement
period, if you are the operator of a vessel in the safety zone you must

comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol
displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: September 21, 2022.
David E. O'Connell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-20904 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7834-7835]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI11-2-000]

Goshen Powerhouse, LLC; Notice of Declaration of Intention and
Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI11-2-000.
    c. Date Filed: January 20, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Goshen Powerhouse, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Goshen Powerhouse Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Goshen Powerhouse Hydroelectric Project
will be located on the Millrace Canal, Elkhart River in Goshen, Elkhart
County, Indiana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Timothy P. Braun, Registered Agent, Goshen
Powerhouse, LLC, 118 East Washington Street, Suite 2, Goshen, IN 46528;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or E-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions: March 4,
2011.

    All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. Please include the docket number
(DI11-2-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Goshen Powerhouse
Hydroelectric Project will consist of: (1) An existing mill pond with
approximately 3,100-acre-feet of storage; (2) an existing 12.5 foot
high concrete dam with a 200-foot-long ogee spillway; (3) an existing
2-mile-long, 4-to-6-foot-deep, 50-to-200-foot-wide headrace canal; (4)
an existing 25-foot-long, 49-foot wide powerhouse, containing a
prototype system in which an in-conduit power generating system in a
48-inch steel pipe will be rated at 50-kW, while a second in-conduit
power generating system in a 36-inch steel pipe will be rated at 30-kW;
(5) a 100-foot-long, 50-foot-wide tailrace discharging water back into
the Elkhart River; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The power will be
transmitted from the generators to a load base.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, and/or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may
submit comments, a protest, and a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210, .211,

.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, and/or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: February 4, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3153 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65015]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22978]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0306; FRL-9713-04-R9]

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and
Promulgations: California; San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District; Permits; Correcting Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 28, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published a final rule in the Federal Register approving
revisions to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). In
that rulemaking, the EPA inadvertently included erroneous amendatory
instructions codifying the replacement of the previously approved
versions of Rules 20.1, 20.3, and 20.4. This document corrects the
errors in the final rule's amendatory instructions.

DATES: This correction is effective October 28, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In our final rule published September 28,
2022 (87 FR 58729), the EPA inadvertently included errors in amendatory
instructions that codified our deletion with replacement of the
previously-approved versions of the following rules:
    1. Rule 20.1, ``New Source Review--General Provisions,'' as amended
on October 14, 2021, at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(10), citing the
EPA's approval of a previous version of Rule 20.1 at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(6). The EPA's approval of the version of Rule 20.1
that had been previously approved and is being replaced by our approval
of the October 14, 2021 version of Rule 20.1 is listed in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(1), not 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(6). This error
correction corrects the amendatory instructions to codify the
replacement of the previously-approved version of Rule 20.1 in a new
paragraph at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(5).
    2. Rule 20.3, ``New Source Review--Major Stationary Sources and PSD
Stationary Sources,'' (except subsections (d)(1)(vi), (d)(2)(i)(B),
(d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi)(B) and (d)(3)), revision adopted on October 14,
2021, at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(11), citing the EPA's approval of
a previous version of Rule 20.3 at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(8). The
EPA's approval of the version of Rule 20.3 that had been previously
approved and is being replaced by our approval of the October 14, 2021
version of Rule 20.3 is listed in 40 CFR 52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(3), not
40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(8). This error correction corrects the
amendatory instructions to codify the replacement of the previously-
approved version of Rule 20.3 in a new paragraph at
52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(6).
    3. Rule 20.4, ``New Source Review--Portable Emission Units''
(except subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i)(B),
(d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v)(B), (d)(3) and (d)(5)), revision adopted on
October 14, 2021, at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(12) citing the EPA's
approval of a previous version of Rule 20.4 at 40 CFR
52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(9). The EPA's approval of the version of Rule 20.4
that had been previously approved and is being replaced by our approval
of the October 14, 2021 version of Rule 20.4 is listed in 40 CFR
52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(4), not 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(9). This error
correction corrects the amendatory instructions to codify the
replacement of the previously-approved version of Rule 20.4 in a new
paragraph at 52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(7).

0
In FR Doc. 2022-20588 appearing on pages 58731-58732 in the Federal
Register of Wednesday, September 28, 2022, the following corrections
are made:

Sec.  52.220  [Corrected]

    1. On page 58731, in the middle of the third column, the amendatory
instruction currently reading as ``2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(488)(i)(A)(6), (c)(508)(i)(A)(10), (11), and
(12), and (c)(557)(i)(B), adding reserved paragraph (c)(587), and
adding paragraph (c)(588) to read as follows:'' is corrected to read as
``2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(488)(i)(A)(6),
(c)(539)(i)(A)(5), (6), and (7), and (c)(557)(i)(B), adding reserved
paragraph (c)(587), and adding (c)(588) to read as follows:''
    2. On page 58731, at the bottom of the third column, the regulatory
text adding 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(10) is corrected to add
52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(5), to read as follows: ``(5) Previously approved
on September 16, 2020 in paragraph (c)(539)(i)(A)(1) of this section
and now deleted with replacement in (c)(588)(i)(A)(1) of this section,
Rule 20.1, ``New Source Review--General Provisions,'' revision adopted
on October 14, 2021.''
    3. Beginning on page 58731, at the bottom of the third column, the
regulatory text adding 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(11) is corrected to
add 52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(6), to read as follows: ``(6) Previously
approved on September 16, 2020 in paragraph (c)(539)(i)(A)(3) of this
section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(588)(i)(A)(2)
of this section, Rule 20.3, ``New Source Review--Major Stationary
Sources and PSD Stationary Sources'' (except subsections (d)(1)(vi),
(d)(2)(i)(B), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi)(B) and (d)(3)), revision adopted on
October 14, 2021.''
    4. On page 58732, at the top of the first column, the regulatory
text adding 40 CFR 52.220(c)(508)(i)(A)(12) is corrected to add
52.220(c)(539)(i)(A)(7), to read as follows: ``(7) Previously approved
on September 16, 2020 in paragraph (c)(539)(i)(A)(4) of this section
and now deleted with replacement in (c)(588)(i)(A)(3), of this section,
Rule 20.4, ``New Source Review--Portable Emission Units'' (except
subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i)(B), (d)(2)(iv),
(d)(2)(v)(B), (d)(3) and (d)(5)), revision adopted on October 14,
2021.''

    Dated: October 18, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-22978 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P