[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32287-32294]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14748]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0298; FRL-9964-84-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation; State of Utah; Salt Lake County and
Utah County Nonattainment Area Coarse Particulate Matter State
Implementation Plan Revisions to Control Measures for Point Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
Utah on January 4, 2016, and certain revisions submitted on January 19,
2017, for the coarse particulate matter (PM10) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in the Salt Lake County and Utah
County PM10 nonattainment areas. The revisions that the EPA
is proposing to approve are located in Utah Division of Administrative
Rule (DAR) R307-110-17 and SIP Subsection IX.H.1-4, and establish
emissions limits for PM10, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for certain stationary sources in the
nonattainment areas. These actions are being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0298 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    a. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    Under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, Salt Lake and Utah Counties
were designated nonattainment for PM10 and classified as
moderate areas by operation of law as of November 15, 1990 (56 FR
56694, 56840; November 6, 1991). The air quality planning requirements
for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in
subparts 1 and 4, part D, Title I of the Act. As described in section
110 and 172 of the Act, areas designated nonattainment based on failure
to meet the PM10 NAAQS are required to develop SIPs with
sufficient control measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the
NAAQS.
    On July 8, 1994, the EPA approved the PM10 SIP for Salt
Lake and Utah Counties (59 FR 35036). The SIP included a demonstration
of attainment and various control measures, including emission limits
at stationary sources. Because emissions of SO2 and
NOX contribute significantly to the PM10 problem
in the area, the SIP included limits on emissions of SO2 and
NOX in addition to emissions of PM10.
    On September 26, 1995, the EPA designated Ogden City as
nonattainment for PM10 and classified the area as moderate
under section 107(d)(3) of the Act (60 FR 38726; July 28, 1995).
Subsequently, the EPA approved a clean data determination for the Ogden
City nonattainment area on January 7, 2013 (78 FR 885), suspending
obligations to submit certain requirements of part D, subparts 1 and 4
of the Act for so long as the area continues to attain.
    On July 3, 2002 Utah submitted SIP revisions adopting rule R307-
110-10, which incorporated revisions to portions of Utah's SIP Section
IX, Part A, and rule R307-110-17, which incorporated revisions to
portions of Utah's SIP Section IX Part H. These revisions were approved
by the EPA on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78181). The revisions to Utah's
SIP Section IX Part H removed several stationary sources subject to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements from the
initial list of RACT sources in the Utah County nonattainment area,
based on SIP threshold limits for PM10, NOx, and
SO2 of 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. In doing
so, the number of major stationary sources included in the SIP for the
Utah County nonattainment area was reduced from 14 sources to 5
sources. Notably, one of the sources retained in Utah's 2002 SIP was
Geneva Steel, which underwent a protracted closure and had largely
ceased operations by 2004. In 2005, the PacifiCorp--Lake Side Power
Plant was constructed on a portion of the former Geneva Steel facility,
utilizing banked emission credits from Geneva Steel's closure.
    On January 4, 2016, Utah submitted SIP revisions to R307-110-17
titled ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part
H, Emission Limits'' and revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. The titles
for Subsection IX.H.1-4 include: (1) General Requirements: Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, PM10 Requirements; (2) Source Specific Emission
Limitations in Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/
Maintenance Area; (3) Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah
County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area; and (4) Interim
Emission Limits and Operating Practices. Additionally, on January 19,
2017, Utah submitted revisions to Subsection IX.H.1-4. Further
discussion of the revisions to R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4 can
be found below.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Utah's SIP

A. R307-110-17

    1. Section R307-110-17 incorporates the amendments to Section IX.H
into state rules, thereby making them effective as a matter of state
law. This is a ministerial provision and does not by itself include any
control measures.

B. Subsection IX.H.1-4

    1. Subsection IX.H.1. General Requirements: Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices,
PM10 Requirements. This section establishes general
requirements for record keeping,

reporting, and monitoring for the stationary sources subject to
emissions limits under subsections IX.H.2-4. Additionally, this section
establishes general refinery requirements, addressing limitations on
emitting units common to the refineries in the nonattainment areas.
These general refinery requirements include limits at fluid catalytic
cracking units, limits on refinery fuel gas, restrictions on liquid
fuel oil consumption, requirement for sulfur removal units, and
requirements for hydrocarbon flares.
    2. Subsection IX.H.2. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Salt
Lake County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This
section establishes specific emission limitations for 14 sources. These
sources are Big West Oil Refinery; Bountiful City Light and Power;
Central Valley Reclamation Facility; Chevron Products Company; Hexcel
Corporation; Holly Refining and Marketing Company; Kennecott Utah
Copper (KUC): Bingham Canyon Mine; KUC: Copperton Concentrator; KUC:
Power Plant and Tailings Impoundment; KUC: Smelter and Refinery;
PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power Plant; Tesoro Refining & Marketing
Company; University of Utah; and West Valley Power Holdings, LLC. Major
stationary sources were identified based on their potential to emit
(PTE) of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of PM10, NOx, or
SO2. A summary of the current emission limits, for retained
sources, is outlined in Table 1 below, and a summary of the proposed
new emission limits is outlined in Table 2 below.

                          Table 1--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Concentration based    Alternative emission
               Source                       Pollutant             Process unit         Mass based limits            limits                 limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amoco Oil Company \1\..............  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  113 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  688 tpy..............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  2,013 tpy............
Bountiful City Light and Power.....  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  1.06 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  250 tpy..............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  5.97.................
Central Valley Water Reclamation     PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.67 tpy.
 Facility.                           NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  203.7 tpy............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  3.95 tpy.............
Chevron Products Company...........  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  175 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  1,022 tpy............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  2,578 tpy.
Flying J \2\.......................  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  22 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  278.7 tpy.
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  864.6 tpy.
Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant    ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  175 MMscf natural gas
 #3 \3\.                                                                                per year.
                                                                                10.8 MM pounds of
                                                                                carbon fiber
                                                                                produced per year.
Holly Refining and Marketing         PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.416 tpd.
 Company.                            NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  2.09 tpd.............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  0.31 tpd.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham       ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  Maximum of 30,000
 Canyon Mine.                                                                                daily miles for
                                                                                waste haul trucks.
                                                                                Fugitive road dust
                                                                                emission controls.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Power Plant.  PM10..................  Total Power Plant.....  257 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Total Power Plant.....  5085 tpy.............
                                     SO2...................  Total Power Plant.....  6219 tpy.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Tailings      ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  Fugitive dust
 Impoundment.                                                                                maintenance program
                                                                                and mitigation
                                                                                procedures.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter.....  PM10..................  Main Stack............  400 lb/hr.
                                     SO2 (daily avg).......  Main Stack............  5,700 lb/hr..........
                                     SO2...................  Acid Plant Tail Gas...  1200 lb/hr...........  650 ppmvd.
                                     NOX...................  Smelter Powerhouse....  20.8 lb/hr...........  80/9 ppmdv.
                                     PM10..................  Rotary Concentrate      4.2 lb/hr.
                                                              Dryer Stack.
                                     NOX...................  Rotary Concentrate      7.1 lb/hr............  67 ppmdv.
                                                              Dryer Stack.
Kennecott Utah Copper: Refinery....  PM10..................  Total Refinery........  51.9 tpy.
                                     SO2...................  Total Refinery........  162.6 tpy............
                                     NOX...................  Total Refinery........  121 tpy.
University of Utah.................  PM10..................  Source wide...........  74.3 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Source wide...........  245.8 tpy.
                                     SO2...................  Source wide...........  219.3 tpy.
Utah Power and Light--Gadsby \4\...  PM10..................  Source Wide...........  61.3 tpy.
                                     NOX...................  Source wide...........  2,983 tpy............

                                     SO2...................  Source wide...........  67.7 tpy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Amoco Oil Company facility corresponds with the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\2\ The Flying J refinery corresponds with the Big West Oil facility in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\3\ The Hercules Aerospace Company--Plant #3 corresponds with the Hexcel Corporation in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.
\4\ Utah Power and Light--Gadsby, corresponds with PacifiCorp--Gadsby in the proposed emission limits of Table 2.

                         Table 2--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Salt Lake County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Concentration  based  Alternative  emission
               Source                       Pollutant             Process unit         Mass based limits            limits                 limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big West Oil.......................  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  1.037 tons per day
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........   (tpd).
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  0.8 tpd..............
                                                                                0.6 tpd..............
Bountiful City Light and Power.....  NOX...................  GT#1..................  0.6 g NOX/kW-hr.
                                     NOX...................  GT#2 and GT#3.........  7.5 lb NOX/hr........
Central Valley Water Reclamation     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  0.648 tpd.
 Facility.
Chevron Products Company...........  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.715 tpd.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  2.1 tpd..............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  1.05 tpd.............
Hexcel Corporations................  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  5.50 MMscf natural
                                                                                gas per day.
                                                                                0.061 MM pounds of
                                                                                carbon fiber
                                                                                produced per day.
Holly Refining and Marketing         PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.416 tpd.
 Company.                            NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  2.09 tpd.............
                                     SO2...................                          0.31 tpd.............
Kennecott Utah Copper: Bingham       ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  Maximum of 30,000
 Canyon Mine.                                                                                miles for waste haul
                                                                                trucks per day.
                                                                                Fugitive road dust
                                                                                emission control
                                                                                requirements.
Kennecott Copperton Concentrator...  ......................  ......................  .....................  .....................  Requirement to
                                                                                operate a gas
                                                                                scrubber operated in
                                                                                accordance with
                                                                                parametric
                                                                                monitoring.
Kennecott Utah Copper:.............  PM10..................  Power Plant Unit #5...  18.8 lb/hr.
 Power Plant and                     NOX...................  Power Plant Unit #5...  .....................  2.0 ppmdv (15% O2
                                                                                dry).
 Tailings Impoundment                NOX...................  Power Plant Unit #5     395 lb/hr.
                                                              Startup/Shutdown.
                                     PM10 (Filterable).....  Units #1, #2, #3, and   0.004 grains/dscf.
                                                              #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
                                     PM10 (Filterable +      Units #1,# 2, #3, and   0.03 grains/dscf.
                                      Condensable).           #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
                                     NOX...................  Units #1,# 2, and #3,   .....................  336 ppmdv (3% O2).
                                                              Nov 1-Feb 28/29.
                                     NOX...................  Unit #4, Nov 1-Feb 28/  .....................  336 ppmdv (3% O2).
                                                              29.
                                     PM10 (Filterable).....  Units #1,# 2, and #3,   0.029 grains/dscf.
                                                              Mar 1-Oct 1.
                                     PM10 (Filterable +      Units #1,# 2, and #3,   0.29 grains/dscf.
                                      Condensable).           Mar 1-Oct 1.
                                     PM10 (Filterable).....  Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1..  0.029 grains/dscf.
                                     NOX...................  Units #1,# 2, and #3,   .....................  426.5 ppmdv (3% O2)..
                                                              Mar 1-Oct 1.
                                     NOX...................  Unit #4, Mar 1-Oct 1..  .....................  384 ppmdv (3% O2)....
Kennecott Utah Copper: Smelter and   PM10 (Filterable).....  Main Stack............  89.5 lb/hr...........
 Refinery.
                                     PM10 (Filterable +      Main Stack............  439 lb/hr............
                                      Condensable).
                                     SO2 (3-hr rolling avg)  Main Stack............  552 lb/hr............
                                     SO2 (daily avg).......  Main Stack............  422 lb/hr............
                                     NOX (daily avg).......  Main Stack............  154 lb/hr............
                                     NOX...................  Refinery: Sum of 2      9.5 lb/hr............
                                                              tank house boilers.
                                     NOX...................  Refinery: Combined      5.96 lb/hr...........
                                                              Heat Plant.
                                     NOX...................  Molybdenum Autoclave    5.01 lb/hr...........
                                                              Project: Combined
                                                              Heat Plant.
PacifiCorp Energy: Gadsby Power      NOX...................  Steam Unit #1.........  179 lb/hr............
 Plant.

                                     NOX...................  Steam Unit #2.........  204 lb/hr............
                                     ......................  Steam Unit #3.........  142 lb./hr (Nov 1-Feb
                                     NOX...................                           28/29).
                                     NOX...................  Steam Unit #3.........  203 lb/hr (Mar 1-Oct
                                                                                31).
Tesoro Refining and Marketing        PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  2.25 tpd.
 Company.                            NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  1.988 tpd............
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  3.1 tpd.
University of Utah.................  NOX...................  Boiler #3.............  .....................  9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
                                                             Boiler #4a & #4b......  .....................  9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
                                                             Boiler #5a & #5b......  .....................  9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
                                                             Turbine...............  .....................  9 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
                                                             Turbine and WHRU Duct   .....................  15 ppmdv (3% O2 Dry).
                                                              burner.
West Valley Power \5\..............  NOX...................  Sum of all five         1,050 lb/day.
                                                              turbines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ West Valley Power was not a listed source in the 1994 SIP for the Salt Lake County PM10 NAA.

    3. Subsection IX.H.3. Source Specific Emission Limitations in Utah
County PM10 Nonattainment/Maintenance Area. This section
establishes specific emission limitations for 6 sources. These sources
are Brigham Young University (BYU); Geneva Nitrogen Inc.; PacifiCorp
Energy: Lake Side Power Plant; Payson City Corporation: Payson City
Power; Provo City Power: Power Plant; and Springville City Corporation:
Whitehead Power Plant. Major stationary sources were identified based
on their PTE of 100 tons per year (tpy) or more for PM10,
NOX, and SO2. It is important to note that the
SIP threshold of 100 tpy for all three pollutants is less than the
previous SIP major stationary source thresholds Utah established in its
2002 SIP revision. The 2002 SIP revision had established major
stationary source thresholds for PM10, NOX, and
SO2 at 100 tpy, 200 tpy, and 250 tpy, respectively. By
lowering the SIP threshold to 100 tpy for all three pollutants, three
sources are now added into the SIP. These sources are BYU, Payson City
Power and PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. PacifiCorp Energy--
Lake Side Power Plant sits on a portion of the former Geneva Steel
site. A summary of the current emission limits, for retained sources,
is outlined in Table 3 below, and a summary of the proposed new
emission limits are outlined in Table 4 below.

                            Table 3--Current Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Concentration  based  Alternative  emission
               Source                       Pollutant             Process unit         Mass based limits            limits                 limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Nitrogen Inc: Geneva Plant..  PM10..................  Prill Tower...........  0.24 tpd.............
                                     NOX...................  Montecatini Plant.....  0.389 tpd............
                                     NOX...................  Weatherly Plant.......  0.233 tpd............
Provo City Power: Power Plant......  NOX...................  All engines combined..  2.45 tpd.............
Springville City Corporation:        NOX...................  All engines combined..  1.68 tpd.............
 Whitehead Power Plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Table 4--Proposed Source Specific Emission Limitations in the Utah County PM10 Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Concentration  based  Alternative  emission
               Source                       Pollutant             Process unit         Mass based limits            limits                 limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brigham Young University...........  NOX...................  Unit #1 \6\...........  9.55 lb/hr...........  95 ppmdv (7% O2 Dry).
                                     NOX...................  Unit #2...............  37.4 lb/hr...........  331 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     SO2...................  Unit #2...............  56.0 lb/hr...........  597 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     NOX...................  Unit #3...............  37.4 lb/hr...........  331 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     SO2...................  Unit #3...............  56.0 lb/hr...........  597 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     NOX...................  Unit #4 \7\...........  19.2 lb/hr...........  127 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     NOX...................  Unit #5...............  74.8 lb/hr...........  331 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
                                     SO2...................  Unit #5...............  112.07 lb/hr.........  597 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).

                                     NOX...................  Unit #6 \7\...........  19.2 lb/hr...........  127 ppmdv (7% O2
                                                                                Dry).
Geneva Nitrogen Inc.: Geneva Plant.  PM10..................  Prill Tower...........  0.236 tpd............
                                     PM2.5.................  Prill Tower...........  0.196 tpd.
                                     NOX...................  Montecatini Plant.....  30.8 lb/hr.
                                     NOX...................  Weatherly Plant.......  18.4 lb/hr.
PacifiCorp Energy: Lakeside Power    NOX...................  Block #1 Turbine/HRSG   14.9 lb/hr.
 Plant.                                                       Stacks.
                                     NOX...................  Block #2 Turbine/HRSG   18.1 lb/hr.
                                                              Stacks.
Payson City Corporation: Payson      NOX...................  All engines combined..  1.54 tpd.
 City Power.
Provo City Power: Power Plant......  NOX...................  All engines combined..  2.45 tpd.
Springville City Corporation:        NOX...................  All engines combined..  1.68 tpd.
 Whitehead Power Plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NOX limit for Unit #1 is 95 ppm (9.55 lb/hr) until it operates for more than 300 hours during a rolling 12-month period, then the limit will be
  36 ppm (5.44 lb/hr). This will be accomplished through the installation of low NOX burners with Flue Gas Recirculation.
\7\ The NOX limit for Units #4 and #6 is 127 ppm (38.5 lb/hr) until December 31, 2018, at which time the limit will then be 36 ppm (19.2 lb/hr).

    4. Subsection IX.H.4. Interim Emission Limits and Operating
Practices. R307-110-17 Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emission Limits. This section establishes interim
emission limits for sources whose new emission limits under Subsections
IX.H.2 and 3 are based on controls that are not currently installed,
with the provision that all necessary controls needed to meet the
emission limits under Subsection IX.H.2 and IX.H.3 shall be installed
by January 1, 2019. A summary of the proposed interim emission limits
is outlined in Table 5 below.

                                            Table 5--Proposed Interim Emission Limits and Operating Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Concentration based    Alternative emission
               Source                       Pollutant             Process unit         Mass based limits            limits                 limits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big West Oil.......................  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.377 tpd Oct 1-March
                                                                                31.
                                                                                0.407 tpd April 1-
                                                                                Sept 30.
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  2.764 tpd Oct 1-March
                                                                                31.
                                                                                3.639 tpd April 1-
                                                                                Sept 30.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  1.027 tpd Oct 1-Mar
                                                                                31.
                                                                                1.145 tpd Apr 1-Sep
                                                                                30.
Chevron Products Company...........  PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.234 tpd.
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  0.5 tpd.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  2.52 tpd.
Holly Refining and Marketing         PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.44 tpd.
 Company.
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  4.714 tpd.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  2.20 tpd.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing        PM10..................  Facility Wide.........  0.261 tpd.
 Company.
                                     SO2...................  Facility Wide.........  3.699 tpd Nov 1-Feb
                                                                                28/29.
                                                                                4.374 tpd Mar 1-Oct
                                                                                31.
                                     NOX...................  Facility Wide.........  1.988 tpd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, the EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition, section 110(l) requires that each
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a state shall be
adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing.
    The Utah SIP revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve do not
interfere with any applicable requirements of the Act. The DAR section
R307-110-17 and Subsection IX.H.1-4, submitted January 4, 2016, and
January 19, 2017 are intended to strengthen the SIP. Therefore, CAA
section 110(l) requirements are satisfied.
    Specifically, the proposed emission limits for the retained sources
in the Salt Lake County nonattainment area will result in a reduction
of PM10, SO2, and NOX emissions by
10.64 tpd, 12.87 tpd and 29.97 tpd, respectively, when compared to the
limits established in the original PM10 SIP. Given the large
net decrease in emissions from the retained major stationary sources in
the Salt Lake County nonattainment area, the proposed action will
enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
    The proposed emissions from Geneva Nitrogen, Provo City Power
Plant, and the Springville City Corporation--Whitehead Power Plant are
consistent with the 2002 SIP revisions for Utah County. Additionally,
this proposed action adds three sources--BYU, Payson City Power and
PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant. Both BYU and Payson City
Power have been in existence since the original 1994 SIP, and BYU was
initially included as a source in the original 1994 SIP, but was
removed in 2002. The inclusion of these two sources do not reflect an
increase in emissions into the Utah County nonattainment area airshed,
but rather reflect a change in the approach of how stationary sources
are included into the SIP. PacifiCorp Energy--Lake Side Power Plant is
also being added into the SIP, but its addition does not reflect an
emissions increase to the nonattainment area because the facility was
required to use offsetting emissions, largely made available through
the closure of the Geneva Steel facility. The closing of Geneva Steel
resulted in the removal of approximately 1,700 tpy PM10,
1,400 tpy SO2, and 4,200 tpy NOX from the Utah
County airshed. These emission reductions were banked and made
available for purchase for future major source construction and
modifications. In order to construct the Lakeside Power Plant, banked
emission credits were purchased and used at an offset ratio of 1.2:1
(e.g. For every 1.0 tpy of emissions allowed at the Lakeside Power
Plant, 1.2 tpy of banked emission credits must be spent from the Utah
emissions credit offset registry.). In total the Lakeside Power Plant
utilized banked emission credits for PM10, SO2,
and NOX in the amounts of 257 tpy, 66 tpy, and 337 tpy,
respectively. Given the offset ratio required for the construction of
the Lakeside Power Plant, the inclusion of this source into the SIP
does not result in any emissions increase to the Utah County airshed,
and actually reflects a net decrease from the 2002 SIP. As a result of
the decreased emissions from the closure of the Geneva Steel facility,
and the offsetting ratio required to construct the Lake Side Power
Plant, the proposed revision to the Utah County PM10 SIP
will enhance the area's ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS.

V. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing approval and requesting public comment on
revisions to Administrative Rule R307-110-17 and revisions to
Subsection IX.H.1-4 as submitted by the State of Utah on January 4,
2016, and January 19, 2017. These revisions establish emissions
limitations and related requirements for certain stationary sources of
PM10, NOX and SO2, and will therefore
serve to continue progress towards attainment and maintenance of the
PM10 NAAQS in the nonattainment areas. The proposed
revisions reflect more stringent emission levels for total emissions of
PM10, SO2, and NOX for each of the
affected facilities, as well as updates the inventory of major
stationary sources to accurately reflect the current sources in both
the Salt Lake County and Utah County nonattainment areas (e.g.,
removing sources which no longer exist, or are now covered under an
area source rule). The updated list of sources and revised emission
limits for the major stationary sources in the two nonattainment areas
will serve to enhance both area's ability to attain or maintain the
NAAQS.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the DAQ PM10 SIP revisions as discussed in section
III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or
at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 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 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 30, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-14748 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49556]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in Use of Aeronautical
Property at Elizabeth City Regional Airport, Elizabeth, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on a request by the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Airport
Authority to change a portion of airport property from aeronautical to
non-aeronautical use at the Elizabeth City Airport, Elizabeth City,
North Carolina. The request consists of approximately 0.396 acres. This
action is taken under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Aviation, 1050 Meridian
Drive, RDU Airport, NC 27623; and the FAA Memphis Airports District
Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-
2482. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Mr. Phillip J. Braden, Manager, Memphis Airports District
Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-
2482.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Philip Lanier, Airport Project Manager,
NCDOT, 1560 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1560.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Hester, Community Planner,
Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office,
2600, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118-2482. The
application may be reviewed in person at this same location, by
appointment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public
comment on the request to release property for non-aeronautical
purposes at Elizabeth City Regional Airport, Elizabeth City, NC 27909.
Under the provisions of AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
    On August 14, 2014, the FAA determined that the request to release
property for non-aeronautical purposes at Elizabeth City Regional
Airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part,
no later than September 22, 2014.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Airport Authority is proposing
to release approximately 0.396 acres at Elizabeth City Regional
Airport. The change to non-aeronautical use is needed so the Airport
Authority can grant additional right of way to the North Carolina
Department of Transportation for the proposed widening of North
Carolina 344 and the addition of a left turn lane at Stare Road 1131
(Consolidated Rd.). The turn lane will improve safety conditions at
this intersection and improve traffic flow to the airport and
surrounding community. The Airport Authority Board has approved of this
action and has agreed on a fair market value compensation of $17,125.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on August 14, 2014.
Phillip Braden,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-19885 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3001-3003]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00419]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457; FRL-9939-49]

VNT1 Protein in Potato; Amendment to a Temporary Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the VNT1 protein in or on
potatoes when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance
with the terms of Experimental Use Permit (EUP) (8917-EUP-2). J.R.
Simplot Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment of the
temporary tolerance exemption. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of VNT1 protein in
potato. The temporary tolerance exemption expires on April 1, 2017,
concurrent with the EUP (8917-EUP-2).

DATES: This regulation is effective January 20, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 21, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, 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), West William Jefferson Clinton 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 21, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www2.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 24, 2014 (79 FR 63594) (FRL-
9916-03), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ((PP)
4F8251) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706.
Also, in the Federal Register of December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75107) (FRL-
9918-90), EPA inadvertently re-announced the filing of this same
petition. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by
establishing a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of Potato Late Blight Resistance protein VNT1 in or on
potato. Those documents referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is available in the
docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, http://www.regulations.gov. Upon
determining that such exemption meets the FFDCA safety standard, EPA
established a temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of Potato Late Blight Resistance protein VNT1 in or on
potato when used in accordance with the terms of EUP 8917-EUP-2, with
an expiration date of December 31, 2015, in the Federal Register of
February 23, 2015 (80 FR 9387) (FRL-9922-53).
    In the Federal Register of September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54257) (FRL-
9933-26) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ((PP)
5G8375) by J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 174.534 be amended. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner J.R.
Simplot Company, which is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457,
http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on this FR
notice.
    Because the pesticide petition ((PP) 5G8375) was submitted
concurrently with a request to amend the EUP linked to this tolerance
exemption, EPA only considered amendments to the tolerance exemption
relevant to the pending request to extend the associated EUP. The
request to amend the EUP involved increased acreage, locations and
extending the expiration date of EUP No. 8917-EUP-2 to April 1, 2017.
Because EPA is extending the EUP until April 1, 2017, EPA is revising
the expiration date of the existing tolerance exemption to April 1,
2017.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe '' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency
consider ``available

information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular
pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    The Agency previously assessed the toxicological profile of the
VNT1 protein and the likely exposure from its use as a plant-
incorporated protectant in or on potato in accordance with the terms of
EUP No. 8917-EUP-2. Based on the Agency's assessment, the Agency
concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure to VNT1 protein when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant in or on potato in accordance with the terms of
EUP No. 8917-EUP-2. See (80 FR 9387) (February 23, 2015). Because the
toxicological profile has not changed, any additional exposure to the
VNT1 protein as a result of the extension of the associated EUP will
not affect the Agency's previous safety finding. Therefore, the Agency
is relying on its previous assessment to support the extension of the
expiration date for 40 CFR 174.534. Therefore, based on its previous
assessment, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to the residues of VNT1 protein in
potato when it is used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Such
exposure includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information.

IV. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The Agency has determined that an analytical method is not required
for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical
limitation in association with use under EUP No. 8917-EUP-2.

V. Conclusion

    The Agency is extending the expiration date of this temporary
tolerance exemption to April 1, 2017. The temporary tolerance exemption
will expire on the same date as the concurrent EUP for VNT1 protein
(8917-EUP-2).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the
Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are amended on the basis of a
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

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

    Dated: December 17, 2015.
John E. Leahy, Jr.,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 174.534 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  174.534  VNT1 protein in potato; temporary exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of VNT1 protein in potato are exempt from the requirement
of a tolerance when the Rpi-vnt1 gene that expresses the VNT1 protein
is used as a plant-incorporated protectant in potato in accordance with
the terms of Experimental Use Permit No. 8917-EUP-2. This temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance expires on April 1, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2016-00419 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P