                          RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 205
         NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks
                             69 FR 22601  -  22661
                                April 26, 2004
                         (RCRA Cluster XIV, Non-HSWA)

Name of State:  Washington

State Statutory Authority:  70.105 RCW

Title of Regulations: Chapter 173-303 WAC    Effective Date:  July 31, 2009

Date Checklist Completed:  May 10, 2010

                             FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
                             FEDERAL RCRA CITATION
                           ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION
                                 WAC 173-303-
                               STATE ANALOG IS:

                                  EQUIV-ALENT
LESS STRIN-GENT
                                MORE STRIN-GENT
                               BROADER IN SCOPE
PART 264  -  STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
           SUBPART BB  -  AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
Section 264.1050 is amended by adding paragraph (h) after paragraph (g) and before the note to read as follows:
264.1050
691(1)(g)
                                       X

Purged coatings and solvents from surface coating operations subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
264.1050(h)
691(1)(g)
                                       X

PART 265  -  INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
           SUBPART BB -- AIR EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEAKS
APPLICABILITY
Section 265.1050 is amended by adding paragraph (g) after paragraph (f) and before the note to read as follows:
265.1050
400(3)(a)
                                       X

Purged coatings and solvents from surface coating operations subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
265.1050(g)
400(3)(a)
                                       X


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70932]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Office of the Secretary

Office of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs; Delegation of
Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs the authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act (FCLAA)(15 U.S.C. 1333), as amended by the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act).
    These authorities may be redelegated. These authorities shall be
exercised under the Department's policy on regulations and the existing
delegation of authority to approve and issue regulations.
    I hereby ratify and affirm any actions taken by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, or other FDA officials, which involved the exercise of
the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of this
delegation. This delegation is effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29150 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1609-1610]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2534-000]

Morris Cogeneration, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

January 4, 2011.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Morris Cogeneration, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure(18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
January 24, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-297 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2003-15507

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    Northwest Airlines, Inc.  filed  6/24/03 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, on the one hand, and Sao Paulo, Brazil;
Bogota, Colombia; Cancun, Mexico; Guadalajara, Mexico; Mexico City,
Mexico; Monterrey, Mexico; San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; and Lima, Peru, on
the other hand; and between Cincinnati, Ohio, and Cancun, Mexico; and
between Los Angeles, California, and Guadalajara, Mexico; and to combine
the authority requested with Northwest’s other exemption and
certificate authority.  Northwest states that it will use the authority
pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Delta Air Lines, Inc., whereby
Northwest will place its code on flights operated by Delta.

Applicant rep:   Megan Rae Rosia<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below).

The action above was effective when taken:  August 21, 2003, through
August 21, 2005.

Action taken by:     Paul L. Gretch, Director

		        Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreements between
the United States and the foreign countries involved.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Special Conditions/Remarks:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted
is subject to the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7
of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.   All of the exemption authority granted
is limited to service provided on a code-share basis only.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
Northwest rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond
rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless
Northwest notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market
and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier
selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized
to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any such
carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in
Northwest’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority
granted here, but that are not then being used by Northwest, the holding
of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Northwest in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

- see next page -

														2

The code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject
to the following conditions:  (a) The code-sharing operations conducted
under this authority must comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment
to the Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements
that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract
between the carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon
the requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in
the name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected; and (b)	 the authority
granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither Northwest nor
Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual provisions
between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
 To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov/reports_aviation.asp

										APPENDIX

U.S. CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S.
Government requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before
commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a
foreign airport, contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to
advise the PSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

											8/2003


[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28628]
[DOCID:fr21my10-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1908-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Alabama; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1908-DR), dated May 3, 2010, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 7, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 3, 2010.

    Walker County for Individual Assistance and Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-12200 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43175-43180]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17739]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; FRL-9435-8]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana and Ohio;
Disapproval of Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Revision
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
is taking final action to disapprove the portions of submittals by the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) that pertain to requirements
in the CAA to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is not, however, currently taking action on the remainder
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from IDEM and Ohio
EPA concerning other basic or ``Infrastructure'' elements required
under the CAA. The proposed rule associated with this final action was
published on February 4, 2011. The effect of this action will be an
obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
for Indiana and Ohio no later than two years from the date of
disapproval. The Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA
intends to implement for Indiana and Ohio.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. 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. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. 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. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit basic or
``Infrastructure'' SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within three
years after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. As provided by section 110(k)(2) of the
CAA, within twelve months of a determination that a submitted SIP is
complete under 110(k)(1) of the CAA, the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, where portions of
the state submittals are severable, within that twelve-month period EPA
may approve the portions of the submittals that meet the requirements
of the CAA, take no action on certain portions of the submittals, and
disapprove the portions of the submittals that do not meet the
requirements of the CAA. When the deficient provisions are not
severable from all of the submitted provisions, EPA must propose
disapproval of the submittals, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that such new
Infrastructure SIPs must address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of certain
emissions, also known as the CAA ``good neighbor'' provisions.
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ (see, 71 FR 61144).\1\
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)'' (2009 Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 Guidance for States
making submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three years from the September
21, 2006 signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As identified in the 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each state to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the

ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other states; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other states.
    In the 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
states pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) should
contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the state that contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. EPA further
indicated that the state's submission should explain whether or not
emissions from the state have this impact and, if so, address the
impact. EPA stated that the state's conclusion should be supported by
an adequate technical analysis. EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the state SIP submission,
such as information concerning emissions in the state, meteorological
conditions in the state and the potentially impacted states, monitored
ambient concentrations in the state, and air quality modeling.
Furthermore, EPA indicated that states should address the ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirement independently, which requires an
evaluation of impacts on areas of other states that are meeting the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated
nonattainment. Lastly, in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that states
could not rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see, 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required states to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides that significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance
of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind
state. CAIR was intended to provide states covered by the rule with a
mechanism to satisfy their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to
address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and
interference with maintenance in another state with respect to the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Many states adopted the CAIR
provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the
CAIR requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
obligations for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in response to EPA's petition for
rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until
EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at
1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with
its July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that emissions from
sources in a state must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other states. The modeling performed for the
final Transport Rule shows that both Indiana and Ohio significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
    \3\ The modeling for the final Transport Rule can be found as
technical support documents in the docket folder for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM and Ohio EPA made submittals on October 20, 2009, and
September 4, 2009, respectively, that were intended to demonstrate
satisfaction of all Infrastructure SIP elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Both States relied predominantly on their
respective EPA-approved CAIR regulations to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Indiana further
committed to amend its rule once the Federal CAIR is amended or
replaced.

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposal to disapprove the
portions of the submittals from Indiana and Ohio addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) closed on March 7, 2011.
Indiana and Ohio each submitted a comment letter to EPA, and a synopsis
of their comments, as well as EPA's response to each comment, is
discussed below.
    Comment 1: EPA fails to recognize that Indiana was one of a few
states that submitted its Infrastructure SIP, and wrongly implies the
State was negligent in addressing its CAA requirements. EPA cannot
disapprove Indiana's SIP primarily for its reliance on CAIR. There is
no way for Indiana or Ohio to cure EPA's failure to have all of the
underlying Federal requirements in place for the states to meet the
transport provision requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D). Although
Indiana understands that the CAIR program cannot be defined as
permanent and enforceable for SIP purposes, the Transport Rule is not
yet final, and was not proposed until after the Infrastructure SIP
deadline. Therefore, Indiana believes its Infrastructure SIP is
adequate and contains provisions to address all requirements of Section
110(a)(2)(D). CAIR was the only option states could rely upon at the
time the SIPs were due, and Indiana made it clear within its submittal
that it would adopt the requirements of the replacement rule for CAIR
in a timely manner.
    Response 1: EPA recognizes the State's timely efforts in submitting
its Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
However, as outlined in EPA's proposed action, Indiana's portion of the
Infrastructure SIP in addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is
inadequate and must therefore be disapproved.
    States were provided with the 2009 Guidance detailing the required
elements of an approvable Infrastructure SIP. Specific to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA indicated in the 2009
Guidance that a state's submittal should contain adequate provisions to
prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the state that contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state. EPA further indicated that the state's
submission should explain

whether or not emissions from the state have this impact and, if so,
address the impact. EPA stated that the state's conclusion should be
supported by an adequate technical analysis. IDEM did not provide a
technical analysis in its submittal, but instead relied primarily on
its approved CAIR regulations to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. In the proposed rulemaking, EPA provided rationale for why other
programs already implemented, and cited by Indiana in its October 20,
2009 submittal, e.g., the NOx SIP Call, stack height
requirements, and acid deposition control regulations, are not
sufficient to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    CAIR was promulgated before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were
revised in 2006 and does not address interstate transport with respect
to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ Thus, as EPA's 2009
Guidance explicitly notes, states cannot rely on CAIR to comply with
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Furthermore, SIPs can only rely on permanent emissions reductions, and
because the Transport Rule in its final form will simultaneously
replace and ``remedy CAIR's flaws,'' CAIR will not provide permanent
emissions reductions. In conclusion, the portions of Indiana's
submittal addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are
inadequate, and cannot be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), the DC Circuit in North
Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's quantification of States'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance in CAIR
was improper, and remanded the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect
only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to Indiana's assertion, CAIR was not the only option
states could rely upon at the time Infrastructure SIPs were due. As
reflected in the 2009 Guidance, CAIR did not address the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS obligating states under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to make the appropriate demonstration. However, the
2009 Guidance did explain the type of technical analysis and
justification necessary to make that demonstration. Indiana did not
provide any technical analysis or justification in its October 20, 2009
submittal to support any such demonstration.
    Comment 2: EPA should provide Indiana the opportunity to revise its
Infrastructure SIP once the Transport Rule is completed, especially
since there is no court-ordered deadline for EPA to act on this
particular SIP submittal.
    Response 2: EPA is taking action to disapprove the portions of
Indiana's Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) under section 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA.
This section of the CAA requires EPA to approve or disapprove a SIP
within 12 months of its completeness determination. Under section
110(k), EPA was required to disapprove or approve Indiana's
Infrastructure SIP by April 20, 2011. Indiana has an opportunity to
revise and submit a SIP at any time and is invited to do so following
final promulgation of the Transport Rule and within the time provided
by the CAA.
    Comment 3: EPA was not timely in developing the Transport Rule,
which states expected to use when addressing the interstate transport
requirements of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
states' Infrastructure SIPs should not be disapproved at this time.
Instead, EPA should delay action on the Infrastructure SIPs until
states can revise them once the Transport Rule is finalized. EPA also
stated that Indiana had failed to provide a modeling analysis. Did EPA
expect an analysis from States when States knew that the proposed
Transport Rule would adequately address the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS? Why would Indiana, or any other State, do
modeling or rulemaking in advance of the Transport Rule being proposed?
    Response 3: States must meet their statutory requirements by
submitting SIPs with permanent and enforceable measures in a timely
manner. Furthermore, all required documents and technical analyses
should accompany the submittals. Lastly, as discussed in Response 2,
above, section 110(k)(2) and (3) required EPA to disapprove or approve
Indiana's Infrastructure SIP by April 2011.
    Comment 4: Indiana disagrees with EPA's approach to address Section
110(a)(2)(D) requirements by way of a FIP. A FIP will allow expedient
implementation of emission reductions; however, many states prefer to
develop SIPs to better fit their needs. A FIP is also contrary to the
spirit of the CAA by unnecessarily limiting state authority. When the
Transport Rule is finalized, Indiana will be issued a FIP by EPA for
failing to develop an adequate Infrastructure SIP--a requirement that
Indiana has already fulfilled. Indiana plans to incorporate the
Transport Rule into a state rule and replace the transport component of
section 110(a)(2)(D) as expeditiously as possible, and does not believe
that EPA needs to FIP Indiana in order for this action to occur in a
timely manner.
    Response 4: In this action, EPA is disapproving only the portions
of Indiana's Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Upon
disapproval of Indiana's submittal, EPA has a legal obligation,
pursuant to the CAA, to promulgate a FIP. See Section 110(c)(1)(B) of
the CAA. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs
that meet certain requirements within three years of promulgation of a
NAAQS. These SIPs are required to contain, among other things, adequate
provisions ``prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this
subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--(I)
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard.'' Section 110(a)(1)
gives the Administrator authority to prescribe a period shorter than
three years for the states to adopt and submit such SIPs, but does not
give the Administrator authority to lengthen the time allowed for
submission.
    Section 110(c)(1) of the Act, in turn, requires EPA to promulgate
FIPs if EPA has found that the state has failed to make a required
submission or if EPA has disapproved a state submission or found it to
be incomplete. Specifically, section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP within two years after the Administrator ``(A) finds
that a state has failed to make a required submission or finds that the
plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not satisfy the
minimum criteria established under subsection (k)(1)(A) of this section
or (B) disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or
in part.'' The CAA uses mandatory language, finding that EPA shall
promulgate a FIP at any time within 2 years after the actions
identified 110(c)(1)(A) or 110(c)(1)(B) have occurred. EPA's legal
obligation to promulgate FIPs arises when those actions occur without
regard to the underlying reason for the underlying SIP deficiency. The
obligation to promulgate a FIP must be discharged by EPA unless two
conditions are met: (1) The state corrects the deficiency; and (2) the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision, before the
Administrator promulgates the FIP.
    Under this statutory scheme, EPA has authority and an obligation to

promulgate a FIP to correct a SIP deficiency if the actions identified
in section 110(c)(1)(A) or (B) have been taken, and the two conditions
identified in 110(c)(1) have not been met. The question of whether EPA
has authority to promulgate any particular FIP, therefore, must be
considered on a state specific basis.
    EPA disagrees with Indiana's suggestion that the rule is
inconsistent with the CAA because it does not give states time to
develop, submit and receive EPA approval of SIPs before the FIP goes
into effect. Section 110(a)(2) calls on states to submit SIPs that
contain adequate provisions prohibiting the emissions proscribed by
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, when EPA has not received such SIP
submission or has disapproved a SIP submission, it has an obligation
created by section 110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP that meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA does not believe it has
authority to adjust the deadlines established in the Act in order to
give states additional time, after promulgation of the Transport Rule,
to submit SIPs that comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Furthermore, EPA does not believe it has authority to alter the
statutory requirement that it promulgate FIPs within two years of
making a finding of failure to submit. EPA sought to discharge this
duty with respect to the states covered by CAIR for the
PM2.5 NAAQS by promulgating the CAIR; however, the Court
found that rule unlawful and not sufficiently related to the statutory
mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For this reason, EPA does not
believe it could argue that the CAIR FIPs completely discharged its
duty to promulgate FIPs with respect to the states whose section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs are disapproved.
    EPA is following the SIP process established in the statute. The
110(a) SIPs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were due in
2009. In each case, states were given the full 3 years to meet the
requirement. The Transport Rule, when final, will provide the FIP to
fulfill the requirement that was unmet by the states through SIPs. EPA
is required to promulgate a FIP within two years of a state's failure
to have an approved SIP. States were in fact given the first chance to
fulfill the requirement of Section 100(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's action is
subsequent to the State's opportunity to first fulfill the requirement.
    EPA has made every attempt to facilitate the transition between the
requirements of CAIR and those of the Transport Rule. For future
requirements, EPA will also make every effort to address transition
issues. However, EPA cannot ignore its statutory obligations and
therefore cannot ensure that no new requirements will be placed on the
sources being regulated by this action. Every time a NAAQS is revised,
there is a statutory obligation for states to submit SIPs to address
certain CAA requirements. If states fail to meet the deadlines or
submit incomplete or inadequate SIPs, EPA must act to ensure that the
requirements are put into place.
    Even though EPA is planning to promulgate a FIP, the State still
has the opportunity to submit a SIP that can tailor requirements to the
specific needs and concerns of the State in order to meet the
applicable state budgets. Prior to this action, states had ample time
under the provisions of the CAA to develop and submit approvable SIPs
and did not. No state affected by the Transport Rule has submitted a
SIP to replace the emission reductions that were required by CAIR,
despite the North Carolina opinion issued in December 2008 that clearly
stated that CAIR did not adequately address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While
the remand left CAIR in place, resulting in the continued requirement
that states and sources comply with it, states had the opportunity to
develop replacement measures to ensure that 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
components of their SIPs would continue to be fulfilled in the future.
    Comment 5: Indiana has met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
since the end of 2007 and monitoring values continue to trend downward.
Indiana does not significantly contribute to violations of the annual
standard in downwind areas. Therefore, Indiana does not contribute to
any violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA had not
conducted a complete analysis on the contributions at the time the
Infrastructure SIPs were due, nor did EPA give states a chance to
provide comments on the analysis.
    Response 5: As discussed in the proposed disapproval, the modeling
performed for the proposed Transport Rule shows that Indiana
significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind
areas. EPA has now completed the modeling for the final Transport Rule
and, as indicated by the technical support documents for this action,
Indiana in fact contributes to downwind nonattainment in another state
or interferes with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in another state.
    Comment 6: Modeling for the Transport Rule was based on the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, not the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Also, the base years used in the modeling are not reflective of
emissions or monitoring data which show downward trends in more recent
years that include benefits from CAIR.
    Response 6: The modeling performed by EPA for the final Transport
Rule addresses both the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR cannot be included in the analysis
since it does not provide permanent emission reductions nor address the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 7: If EPA proceeds with its disapproval, and Indiana is not
permitted to revise its Infrastructure SIP once the Transport Rule is
finalized, EPA should properly characterize the circumstances
surrounding its need to disapprove the submittal.
    Response 7: The circumstances surrounding EPA's need to disapprove
the portions of Indiana's Infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS that address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were discussed in the proposed disapproval.
Additionally, Response 1, Response 3, and Response 4, above, reiterate
the circumstances surrounding EPA's need to disapprove the portion of
Indiana's Infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS that address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Indiana has an opportunity to revise and submit a
SIP at any time, and is invited to do so following final promulgation
of the Transport Rule and within the time provided by the CAA.
    Response 8: EPA fails to acknowledge states' efforts to meet their
requirements on a timely basis. EPA should approve Ohio's transport
component of the Infrastructure SIP since the State submitted its SIP
on time and in accordance with available guidance.
    Response 9: EPA recognizes Ohio's timely efforts in submitting its
Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
However, in a similar manner as described above in the response to
Comment 1, above, the portions of Ohio's submittal addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS are inadequate, and must be disapproved.
    Comment 10: Instead of disapproving the portion of the SIP
submittal at this time, EPA can issue a SIP deficiency notice and
require a new SIP after the Transport Rule is finalized.
    Response 10: EPA disagrees with Ohio's statement. EPA is taking
action to disapprove the portions of Ohio's submittal under section
110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA. Under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA had
an obligation to approve or disapprove Ohio's submittal by March 4,
2011.

    Comment 11: EPA believes that it must issue this disapproval to
address the transport of emissions and pollution for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS through a FIP. The better course is to allow the
states to develop their own SIP when adopting the Transport Rule.
    Response 11: In this action, EPA is disapproving only the portions
of Ohio's Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS that address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The
full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the requirement
under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than two years
from the date of the disapproval unless the state corrects the
deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision
before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. Ohio is welcome to
submit a revised SIP for EPA approval that addresses the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS after the Transport Rule is finalized, and
within the time provided by the CAA.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking
final action to disapprove submittals from Indiana and Ohio intended to
demonstrate that each respective State has adequately addressed the
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with regard to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This action pertains only to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); the States' submittals for the remainder of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIPs will be
addressed in separate rulemakings. The effect of this action will be an
obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP for Indiana and Ohio no later
than two years from the date of disapproval. The final Transport Rule
is the FIP that EPA currently intends to promulgate for Indiana and
Ohio.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely disapproves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 19, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph (u), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (u) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the portions of Indiana's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
addressing interstate transport, specifically with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
3. Section 52.1880 is amended by adding paragraph (l), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1880  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (l) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the portions of Ohio's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
addressing interstate transport, specifically with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

[FR Doc. 2011-17739 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36545-36546]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14479]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0254; FRL-9390-1]

Amendment of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received an amendment to a pending experimental use
permit (EUP) from the pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a
pesticide for experimental or research purposes only in accordance with
the limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0254, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. EUP

    EPA has received the following amendment to the pending EUP: 89668-
EUP-R. Submitter: Robert I. Rose, Ph.D., on behalf of James Mains,
Ph.D., Mosquito Mate, Inc., 1122 Oak Hill Drive, Lexington, KY 40505-
3322. Active ingredient: Wolbachia pipientis (now identified as ZAP
strain). Type of active ingredient: Microbial Insecticide. Summary of
amendment request: On May 1, 2013, EPA published in the Federal
Register (78 FR 25436; EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0254) a Notice of Receipt of an
application for an EUP, EPA File Symbol 89668-EUP-R. On May 22, 2013,
the applicant submitted an amendment to that application for an EUP.
The original application specified the release of 30,000 mosquitoes in
Kentucky (0.7 acre). The applicant now intends to release 100,000 male
Aedes albopictus mosquitoes infected with the Wolbachia pipientis ZAP
strain microbial pesticide per week during the mosquito season over a
2-year period and monitor areas in neighborhoods of California (1205
acres); Florida (180 acres); Kentucky (337 acres) and New York (337
acres) as specified in the Section G descriptions in the docket. There
are no other changes to the original application. The released male
mosquitoes are expected to mate with

indigenous female Aedes albopictus causing conditional sterility and
resulting in mosquito population decline. Adult and egg collection data
from treated areas will be compared to those in untreated control sites
to examine for the effect of the released product.
    A copy of the amended application and any information submitted is
available for public review in the docket established for this EUP
application. Following the review of the amended application, EPA will
decide whether to issue or deny the amended EUP request, and if issued,
the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an
EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: June 7, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-14479 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P