[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 89351-89355]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28525]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2023-0590; FRL-11615-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD
or ``District'') to address Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS or ``standards''). These revisions concern emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) from biomass boilers, and also address
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for major
sources of NOX in the portion of the Sacramento Metro, CA,
nonattainment area that is subject to YSAQMD jurisdiction. We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2023-0590 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than English or if you are a person with
a disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Chen, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street (AIR-3-3), San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
947-4304 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

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

I. The State's Submittal

A. What documents did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the documents addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                          Table 1--Submitted Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Document/
            Local agency                rule No.              Document title              Revised     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD..............................  ...........  Reasonably Available Control          09/13/2017   11/13/2017
                                                    Technology (RACT) State
                                                    Implementation Plan (SIP) Analysis
                                                    for the 2008 Federal Ozone
                                                    Standard (``2017 RACT SIP'').
YSAQMD..............................         2.43  Biomass Boilers (public draft        ...........   11/27/2023
                                                    version submitted for parallel
                                                    processing).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 13, 2017, the YSAQMD adopted the ``Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Analysis for the 2008 Federal Ozone Standard'' (``2017 RACT SIP'') to
demonstrate that its stationary sources are subject to RACT rules for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted the 2017 RACT SIP to the EPA for
approval as a revision to the California SIP. The EPA determined that
the negative declarations portion of the 2017 RACT SIP met the SIP
submittal completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V on April
11, 2018.\1\ The EPA determined that the remaining elements of the 2017
RACT SIP met the SIP completeness criteria on August 23, 2018.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter dated April 11, 2018, from Elizabeth J. Adams, Acting
Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB. A ``negative declaration'' is an assertion by a state
or district that a nonattainment area contains no sources covered by
a particular control techniques guidelines (CTG) document.
    \2\ Letter dated August 23, 2018, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 27, 2023, CARB submitted a public draft version of
amendments to Rule 2.43, ``Biomass Boilers,'' along with a request for
parallel processing.\3\ The EPA has reviewed the submitted public draft
version of Rule 2.43 and finds that it fulfills the completeness
criteria of appendix V, with the exception of the requirements of
paragraphs 2.1(e)-2.1(h), which do not apply to rules submitted for
parallel processing. CARB's November 27, 2023 letter states that the
YSAQMD Governing Board was scheduled to consider adoption of the
amended rule on December 13, 2023, and that if it was approved, CARB
would submit the final package to the EPA as a revision to the SIP.
While our evaluation of Rule 2.43 herein is based on the public draft
of the rule submitted by CARB on November 27, 2023, the YSAQMD
Governing Board has since approved the rule amendments from this draft,
and the EPA is now awaiting the final rule submittal from CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Parallel processing'' refers to a process established
under section 2.3 of Appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 that utilizes
concurrent state and federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally,
the state submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other
revisions to the EPA before conducting its public hearing and
completing its public comment process under state law. The EPA
reviews this proposed state or district action and prepares a notice
of proposed rulemaking under federal law. In some cases, the EPA
publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register
during the same timeframe that the state or District is holding its
own public hearing and public comment process. If, after completing
its public comment process and after the EPA's public comment
process has run, the state materially changes its final SIP
submission to the EPA from the initial proposed submission, the EPA
evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another
notice of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to
proceed to taking final action on its proposed action with a
description of the state's changes. Any final rulemaking action by
the EPA will occur only after the state formally adopts and submits
its final submission to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of the submitted documents?

    On June 30, 2023, we took final action to partially approve and
partially disapprove the 2017 RACT SIP.\4\ Our partial disapproval
related solely to the RACT element for major sources of NOX
that we are now proposing to approve in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 88 FR 42252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 2.43 into the SIP on July 2,
2012.\5\ The District adopted amendments to the SIP-approved version of
Rule 2.43 on April 12, 2023, and CARB submitted these amendments to the
EPA on June 8, 2023. We will consider this earlier submittal to be
superseded, by the time of our final action, by the version of Rule
2.43 that has been submitted for parallel processing once it is
submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision. Therefore, we are proposing to
act only on the version of the rule submitted on November 27, 2023,
which includes all revisions made in the June 8, 2023 submittal.
However, we have reviewed materials provided with the June 8, 2023
submittal, and our evaluation below considers the amendments made in
that version of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 77 FR 39181. The EPA published a correcting amendment on
March 28, 2018 (83 FR 13190) that corrected an error in the
regulatory text of the July 2, 2012 final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents?

    Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health
and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit plans that provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. In addition, CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f)
require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
``Moderate'' or higher implement RACT for any category of sources
covered by a control techniques guidelines (CTG)

document and for any major source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
or NOX. The YSAQMD regulates the Yolo and Solano County
portions of the Sacramento Metro, CA, ozone nonattainment area, which
is classified as ``Severe'' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\
Therefore, the YSAQMD must, at a minimum, ensure that all categories of
sources covered by a CTG document and all major sources of VOCs or
NOX within the District implement RACT-level controls. Any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 25
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a Severe ozone
nonattainment area is considered a major stationary source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43 to implement RACT for major
sources of NOX.\7\ As we explained in our June 30, 2023
final action on the 2017 RACT SIP, the current SIP-approved version of
Rule 2.43 contains a provision that explicitly exempts affected units
from complying with rule standards during periods of startup and
shutdown and does not provide for an alternative emission limitation
during such periods. This provision is inconsistent with the EPA's
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Policy as established in the
EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.\8\ This deficiency was the basis for our
disapproval of the major source NOX element of the 2017 RACT
SIP. The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted on April 12, 2023, are intended
to address this by establishing numeric NOX and carbon
monoxide (CO) limits that apply during periods of startup and shutdown.
The Rule 2.43 amendments that YSAQMD has proposed, will also establish
additional recordkeeping and periodic reporting requirements. Our
technical support document (TSD) has more detailed information about
these rule revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 2017 RACT SIP, pages 5 and 45.
    \8\ ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require the implementation of RACT for
each category of sources covered by a CTG, as well as each major source
of NOX or VOC in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or higher (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates a
portion of an ozone nonattainment area classified as ``Severe'' for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and is therefore responsible for ensuring the
applicable sources implement RACT-level controls for that ozone
standard. The YSAQMD relies upon Rule 2.43 to require the applicable
sources to implement RACT-level controls to fulfill the requirements
associated with the major source NOX element for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    We note that the April 12, 2023 amendments to Rule 2.43 also
establish emission standards for CO, which is not an ozone precursor,
and therefore we are not assessing in this action whether the CO
standard implements RACT-level controls. As a result, we have not
evaluated CO emission standards in Rule 2.43 for stringency, but we
have evaluated them under the enforceability and SIP relaxation
criteria.

B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria?

    In our June 30, 2023 final action on the 2017 RACT SIP, we
evaluated the stringency of the 90 parts per million (ppm) (24-hour
block average) NOX emissions limit established by the SIP-
approved version of Rule 2.43.\9\ However, the 90 ppm limit did not
apply during periods of startup and shutdown. As a result, we
determined that the emission limits in SIP-approved Rule 2.43 achieve
RACT-level stringency but found that the lack of a continuous emissions
limit that applies at all times (including periods of startup and
shutdown) precluded us from determining that Rule 2.43 implemented
RACT. We have not identified any information since our June 30, 2023
approval to alter our evaluation of the stringency of the SIP-approved
NOX emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 88 FR 42252. See also TSD for that action, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The April 12, 2023 amendments to Rule 2.43 established a
NOX limit of 215 ppm on a 24-hour block average that applies
during periods of startup and shutdown. We consider this emission limit
to be consistent with the use of either combustion controls or good
combustion practices that are the most stringent control measures that
can be feasibly utilized during periods of startup and shutdown. In
addition, the YSAQMD identified other California air district rules for
biomass boilers and indicated that these rules either exempted periods
of startup and shutdown or had startup/shutdown limits that are less
stringent than those in Rule 2.43. This supports an EPA determination
that the amended rule establishes a RACT-level of control. Finally, we
determined that the amended Rule 2.43 is consistent with each of the
seven specific criteria recommended in the EPA's SSM Policy as
appropriate considerations for developing emission limitations in SIP
provisions applicable during startup and shutdown. Additional
information regarding our evaluation of Rule 2.43 with the seven
criteria is discussed in greater detail in our TSD for this action.
    The Rule 2.43 amendments adopted by YSAQMD on December 13, 2023,
explicitly require that the results of any relative accuracy test audit
(RATA) performed be maintained by the source as required records, and
will also establish a requirement for the owner/operator of an affected
source to submit all records required by the recordkeeping provisions
of the rule to the EPA at least once every six months.\10\ These
reporting provision amendments will assist in ensuring compliance with
emission standards and other rule requirements, and will also ensure
that Rule 2.43 is enforceable by the District and the EPA as well as by
members of the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The amendments require that these records be submitted to
the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) or an analogous EPA electronic submission system. CEDRI is
an internet-based service maintained by the EPA that allows
regulated sources to submit various reports for purposes of
demonstrating compliance with federal requirements. In addition to
regulated sources, state and local agency personnel may create user
accounts on CEDRI and access the information submitted by sources
located within their agency's jurisdiction. Additional information
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the stringency of the existing SIP-approved NOX
limits, combined with the NOX limits established for periods
of startup and shutdown, we propose to approve Rule 2.43 as complying
with EPA's SSM policy and as implementing RACT for this source
category. As discussed previously, the absence of an emission limit
during startup and shutdown was the basis for our disapproval of the
major source NOX element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Since we are
proposing to determine that Rule 2.43 satisfies the requirement to
implement RACT, we are

also proposing to determine that the District implements RACT for major
sources of NOX associated with the area's Severe
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    The existing SIP-approved version of the rule contains several
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions, including a
requirement to operate continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
for NOX and CO; performance specification and calibration
requirements for the CEMS; and requirements to maintain daily logs of
emissions, fuel usage, and startup/shutdown durations. The amendments
adopted on December 13, 2023 establish a new requirement for all
records required by this rule to be submitted to the EPA at least once
every six months. We consider these provisions adequate to ensure that
compliance with rule requirements can be clearly determined, and that
the rule is enforceable by the District and the EPA, as well as by
members of the public. We are also proposing to determine that our
approval of these amendments would comply with CAA section 110(l)
because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with any
applicable CAA requirements. In addition, CAA section 193 does not
apply to this action because Rule 2.43 is not a SIP-approved control
requirement that was in effect before November 15, 1990. Additional
information regarding our evaluation is discussed in greater detail in
our TSD for this action.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve Rule 2.43, as amended on April 12, 2023, and as further amended
on December 13, 2023, into the California SIP. Based on our discussion
in Section II.B of this document, we propose to determine that Rule
2.43 as amended will comply with the EPA's SSM policy and other
applicable CAA requirements and will implement RACT for this source
category. In addition, we propose to approve the major source
NOX RACT element of the 2017 RACT SIP. Because our proposed
approval relies upon our evaluation of the public draft version of the
Rule 2.43 amendments, subsequently adopted on December 13, 2023, but
not yet formally submitted by CARB, we will not take final action until
these amendments are submitted to us as a revision to the California
SIP. If Rule 2.43 is not submitted in the form adopted on December 13,
2023, we will reconsider our proposed action accordingly. We will
accept comments from the public on this proposal until January 26,
2024. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents, our
final action will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable
SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference YSAQMD Rule 2.43, ``Biomass Boilers,'' amended on December
13, 2023, which regulates NOX and CO emissions from biomass-
fueled boilers. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provision of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 740(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it proposes to approve a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA
did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-28525 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23632-23633]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0115]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC Intracoastal Waterway;
Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina on
Sunday, April 24, 2016 for the Xterra Swim. The temporary safety zone
is necessary for the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public during the event. The temporary
safety zone will restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the
Intracoastal Waterway, preventing non-participant vessels from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov type USCG-
2016-0115 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of
Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On February 8, 2016, Set Up Events notified the Coast Guard that it
will sponsor the Xterra Myrtle Beach Swim from 7:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.
on April 24, 2016. In response, on March 3, 2016, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled, Safety Zone;
Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC Intracoastal Waterway; Myrtle Beach, SC
[2016 FR 04664]. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special
local regulation. During the comment period that ended April 4, 2016,
we received no comments.
    Under good cause provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we are making
this rule effective less than 30 days after its publication in the
Federal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective starting April 24, 2016 because the Coast
Guard did not receive notice of this event in time to publish an NPRM
and publish a final rule 30 days before the event. The Coast Guard also
finds good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because the public was provided
details of the event on March 3, 2016 in the NPRM and designated
representatives will be on scene to help the public understand how to
comply with this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to
establish a safety zone: 33 U.S.C. 1231. The purpose of the proposed
rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United
States during the swim portion of the Xterra Myrtle Beach Triathlon

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published March
3, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from
the proposed rule in the NPRM. This rule establishes a safety zone from
7:15 to 9:15 a.m. on April 24, 2016. The safety zone will cover a
portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina. Approximately 75 swimmers are anticipated to participate in
the race. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain
of the Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will
provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The temporary safety zone would be enforced for
only two hours; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative, they would be able to operate in the
surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and
vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard
would provide advance notification of the regulated area to the local
maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this

rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive
Order13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-
1(g), 6.04-1, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0115 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0115  Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach SC.

    (a) Regulated area. A temporary safety zone is established on
certain waters of Intracoastal Waterway, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
The temporary safety zone consists of all waters between the following
two points of position and the North shore: 33[deg]45.076' N,
78[deg]50.790' W to 33[deg]45.323' N, 78[deg]50.214' W. All coordinates
are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast
Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the
regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in the Xterra
Swim, Myrtle Beach, or serving as safety vessels.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced on April 24,
2016 from 7:15 a.m. until 9:15 a.m.

    Dated: April 18, 2016.
G. L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2016-09345 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78571-78573]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32173]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0155; A-1-FRL-9248-1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ). These revisions pertain to the Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a) maintenance plans prepared by ODEQ, to maintain the 8-hour
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone, in the
Portland portion of the Portland/Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area
(Pdx/Van AQMA), and the Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study Air
Quality Area (SKATS). The 110(a)(1) maintenance plans for these areas
meet CAA requirements and demonstrate that each of the above mentioned
areas will be able to remain in attainment for the 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through 2015. As SKATS appears to be significantly impacted
by emissions from the Portland area, an approved plan for the Pdx/Van
AQMA is one of the control strategies for SKATS. Therefore, EPA is
approving the section 110(a) plans for the Portland portion of the Pdx/
Van AQMA and SKATS at the same time.
    Additionally, the EPA is approving SIP revisions submitted by ODEQ
that phase out the State's Vehicle Inspection Program (VIP) enhanced
BAR-31 test, and eliminate the Gas Cap Pressure Test and the
Evaporative Purge Tests.

DATES: This action is effective on January 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number: EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0155. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information 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 electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Region Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On May 6, 2010 (75 FR 24844), EPA proposed to approve the State of
Oregon's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that establishes a
maintenance plan for ozone in the Portland portion of the Portland/
Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (Pdx/Van AQMA) and the Salem-
Keizer Area Transportation Study Air Quality Area (SKATS). This plan
provides measures that enable continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and includes a 2002
base-year emissions inventory. EPA also proposed approval of SIP
revisions submitted by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) that phase out the State's VIP enhanced BAR-31 test, and
eliminate the Gas Cap Pressure Test and the Evaporative Purge Tests. No
comments were received on the proposed approval of this plan. EPA is,
accordingly, taking final action in this notice to approve the plan as
discussed in the proposed action without change.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan and
supporting rules for Portland and Salem, Oregon submitted on May 22,
2007, and described further in the Technical Support document, as
revisions to the Oregon SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance plan and
supporting rules for the Portland Portion of the Pdx/Van AQMA and
SKATS. EPA is also taking final action to approve revisions to the
Oregon SIP pertaining to motor vehicle testing provisions (Oregon SIP:
Volume 2--section 5.4.7--Test Procedures and Standards and supporting
rules). These revisions will not interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of the current CO or ozone NAAQS and meet the requirements
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(l) of the CAA.
    EPA will retain the tables in 40 CFR part 81 that identify the 1-
hour ozone designation and classification status of each area as of the
effective date of the 8-hour designations. (See 70 FR 44471.)
Therefore, although the SKATS area is a State maintenance area for the
1-hour ozone standard, 40 CFR part 81 will retain the nonattainment
designation for the SKATS area. EPA believes that the CAA does not
require a separate 110(l) analysis to replace 1-hour nonattainment NSR
with PSD once an area has been redesignated to attainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or has an approved 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
for that standard. (See 75 FR 64677). In sum, EPA does not require

the continued application of 1-hour anti-backsliding nonattainment NSR
in the SKATS area as long as Oregon interprets its SIP as applying PSD
to this area.
    EPA is incorporating by reference the revisions submitted by the
State to the Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340 as identified
below. Certain other provisions of the Oregon SIP are addressed and
approved by this action but are not being incorporated by reference
into 40 CFR Part 52 to avoid potential conflict with EPA's independent
authorities. See also 68 FR 2891, 2900-2901 (January 22, 2003) for a
discussion of Oregon's underlying statutory authority.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 17, 2012. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 9, 2011.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(152) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (152) On August 9, 2005, and May 22, 2007, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality submitted revisions to the Oregon State
Implementation Plan. The revisions provide an ozone maintenance plan
under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the Portland portion of the
Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area and the Salem-Keizer
Area Transportation Study Air Quality Area, and phase out of the
State's VIP enhanced BAR-31 test, the elimination of the Gas Cap
Pressure Test and the Evaporative Purge Test. The State's maintenance
plan revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The following revised sections of the Oregon Administrative
Rules, Chapter 340, effective April 12, 2007:
    (1) Division 200, General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions:
Rule 0025, Abbreviations and Acronyms;
    (2) Division 202, Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Increments:
Rule 0090, Ozone;
    (3) Division 204, Designation of Air Quality Areas: Rule 0010,
Definitions; Rule 0030, Designation of Nonattainment Areas, the
undesignated introductory text, (2); Rule 0040, Designation of
Maintenance Areas, the undesignated introductory text, (2);
    (4) Division 224, Major New Source Review: Rule 0050, Requirements
for Sources in Nonattainment Areas; Rule 0060, Requirements for Sources
in Maintenance Areas;
    (5) Division 225, Air Quality Analysis Requirements; Rule 0090,
Requirements for Demonstrating a Net Air Quality Benefit;
    (6) Division 232, Emission Standards for VOC Point Sources: Rule
0010, Introduction; Rule 0020, Applicability;

    (7) Division 242, Rules Applicable to the Portland Area, Employee
Commute Options Program: Rule 0010, What is the Employee Commute
Options Program?; Rule 0020, Who is Subject to ECO?; Rule 0030, What
Does ECO require?; Rule 0040, How Does the Department Enforce ECO?;
Rule 0050, Definitions of Terms Used in These Rules; Rule 0070, What
are the Major Requirements of ECO?; Rule 0080, What are the
Registration Requirements?; Rule 0090, What are the Requirements for an
Employee Survey?; Rule 0110, What if an Employer Does Not Meet the
Target Auto Trip Rate?; Rule 0120, How Will Employers Demonstrate
Progress Toward the Target Auto Trip Rate?; Rule 0160, What Should Be
Included in an Auto Trip Reduction Plan?; Rule 0180, What is a Good
Faith Effort?; Rule 0190, How Does the ECO Program Affect New
Employees, Expanding Employers and Employers Relocating within the
Portland AQMA?; Rule 0200, Can a New or Relocating Employer Comply with
ECO Through Restricted Parking Ratios?; Rule 0210, Can an Existing
Employer Comply with ECO Through Restricted Parking Ratios?; Rule 0220,
What if an Employer Has More Than One Work Site Within the Portland
AQMA?; Rule 0240, Are There Alternatives to Trip Reduction?; Rule 0260,
Can Employers Get Credit for Existing Trip Reduction Programs?; Rule
0270, Are Exemptions Allowed if an Employer is Unable to Reduce Trips
or Take Advantage of Alternate Compliance Options?; Rule 0280,
Participation in the Industrial Emission Management Program; Rule 0290,
What Kind of Records Must be Kept and for How Long?;
    (8) Division 242, Rules Applicable to the Portland Area, Industrial
Emission Management Program: Rule 0400, Applicability; Rule 0410,
Definition of Terms; Rule 0420, Unused PSEL Donation Program; Rule
0430, Industrial Growth Allowances; Rule 0440, Industrial Growth
Allowance Allocation.
    (B) The following revised sections of the Oregon Administrative
Rules, Chapter 340, effective July 12, 2005;
    (1) Division 256, Motor Vehicles, Rule 0010, Definitions;
    (2) Division 256, Motor Vehicles, Visible Emissions: Rule 0100,
Visible Emissions--General Requirements, Exclusions; Rule 0130, Motor
Vehicle Fleet Operation;
    (3) Division 256, Motor Vehicles, Emission Control System
Inspection: Rule 0300, Scope; Rule 0310, Government-Owned Vehicle,
Permanent Fleet Vehicle and United States Government Vehicle Testing
Requirements; Rule 0340, Light Duty Motor Vehicle and Heavy Duty
Gasoline Motor Vehicle Emission Control Test Method for Basic Program;
Rule 0350, Light Duty Motor Vehicle Emission Control Test Method for
Enhanced Program; Rule 0380, Light Duty Motor Vehicle Emission Control
Test Criteria for Basic Program; Rule 0390, Heavy Duty Gasoline Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Test Criteria.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) SIP Volume 2 Section 5.4.7: Test Procedures and Standards, as
effective July 12, 2005.

0
3. Section 52.1973 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1973  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (d) Ozone. (1) EPA approves as a revision to the Oregon State
Implementation Plan, the section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plans for
Portland and Salem, submitted to EPA on May 22, 2007.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-32173 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2916-2917]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944; FRL-8349-1]

Petition Requesting EPA to Issue a Notice of Intent to Cancel the
Registrations of M-44 Sodium Cyanide Capsules and Sodium Fluoroacetate;
Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of November 16,
2007, concerning a petition that EPA received from Sinapu, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Beyond Pesticides,
Forest Guardians, Predator Defense, Western Wildlife Conservancy,
Sierra Club, The Rewilding Institute, Animal Defense League of Arizona,
and Animal Welfare Institute. The petition requested EPA to issue a
notice of intent to cancel the registrations of M-44 sodium cyanide
capsules and sodium fluoroacetate. The Agency is seeking further
substantive comment on this petition, and will post a document with
specific questions under docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0944. This Federal Register notice is extending the comment period
from January 16, 2008, to March 5, 2008.

DATES: Comments identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0944
must be received on or before March 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES
in the Federal Register document of November 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Schnackenbeck, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), 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?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When preparing comments follow the procedures and suggestions given
in Unit I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the November 16, 2007
Federal Register document.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    To submit comments, or access the public docket, please follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION of the November 16, 2007 Federal Register document. If you
have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

    This document extends the public comment period established in the
Federal Register of November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64623) (FRL-8156-3). In
that document, EPA published a petition, which requested the Agency to
cancel the use of M-44 sodium cyanide capsules and sodium
fluoroacetate, and opened a 60-day public comment period. EPA is hereby
extending the

comment period, which was set to end on January 16, 2008, to March 5,
2008.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides, Predacides.

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-676 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/14/2007 05:11 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

prb footnote

Hi Lydia,

We have another comment for you:

Can you move footnote 26 into the text and start a new paragraph with it --- suggested edits also included here:

Background O3 concentrations used in the O3 risk assessment were defined in chapter 2 of the Staff Paper as the O3 concentrations that would be observed in the U.S. in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of precursors (e.g., VOC, NOx, and CO) in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. During 1997, EPA estimated background concentration based on measured air concentration in pristine areas.  For the current review, the results of a global tropospheric O3 model (GEOS-CHEM) have been used to estimate monthly background daily diurnal profiles for each of the 12 urban areas for each month of the O3 season using air quality data from 2001. Based on this model, the Criteria Document indicates that background O3 concentrations are generally predicted to be in the range of 0.015 to 0.035 ppm in the afternoon, and they are generally lower under conditions conducive to man-made O3 episodes. In light of CASACs critique of this model and the change in approach, EPA requests comment on the use of modeled values versus the measured values used previously, which were higher. (footnote CASAC comments from March 2007, page 2-3).

Thanks,

Rob

________________________________________________

Robert Johansson, Ph.D.

OMB/OIRA/NREA

725 17th St. NW, Room 10202

Washington, DC 20503

(P)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(F)<PHONE_NUMBER>

(E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>