[Federal Register: December 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 78777-78778]
[DOCID:fr23de08-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12642-001]

Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving
Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

December 16, 2008.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 12642-001.
    c. Date Filed: October 1, 2008.
    d. Submitted by: Wilkesboro Hydroelectric Company, LLC
(Wilkesboro).
    e. Name of Project: W. Kerr Scott Hydropower Project.

    f. Location: At the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' W. Kerr Scott Dam
on the Yadkin River near Wilkesboro, Wilkes County, North Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's Regulations
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Kevin Edwards, Manager, Wilkesboro
Hydroelectric Company, LLC, P.O. Box 143, Mayodan, NC 27027; (336) 589-
6138<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Allyson Conner<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Wilkesboro filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process on October 1, 2008. Wilkesboro filed public notice of its
request on October 23, 2008. In a letter dated December 16, 2008, the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Wilkesboro's request
to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the
joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NMFS under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. Wilkesboro filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's Regulations.
    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    n. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30400 Filed 12-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Memo to 316( b) Phase 3 record Date: September 14, 2004 From: Paul Shriner Re: Conference call with AF& PA and NCASI regarding Phase 3 Data Paul Shriner ( EPA) and Martha Segall ( EPA) had a conference call with Jerry Schwartz ( American Forest and Paper Association) and Bill Gillespie ( National Council for Air and Stream Improvement) to discuss the universe of Phase 3 manufacturing facilities and their cooling water intake structure flows.

NCASI expressed concern that they could only identify 9 paper and associated product facilities with cooling water design intake flows of more than 50 million gallons per day. Their information was mostly obtained from copies of EPA's screener survey as provided to NCASI directly by the manufacturing facilities.

First EPA reiterated the Confidential Business Information ( CBI) policy adhered to by EPA. EPA stated any detailed discussion of the industry would be necessarily constrained by EPA's obligation to protect facility level information from disclosure.

EPA explained the flow data came from the detailed questionnaire, and that EPA had facility responses from 27 paper and associated product facilities with more than 50 million gallons per day design intake. EPA indicated the total design intake flows from the 27 paper respondents totaled 6 billion gallons per day and the actual intake flows were around 3 billion gallons per day. EPA further explained that in some cases the information from the screener survey as used by NCASI had changed for a number of reasons including: changes to information as reported by a facility in the detailed questionnaire, and corrections made by EPA as a result of follow up discussions with an individual facility.

EPA then explained that standard statistical methods were used to develop weighting factors for each facility that are designed to produce the national estimates EPA uses in the rule analyses. The statistical weights for paper facilities with more than 50 million gallons per day design intake flow were typically between 1 and 2. EPA indicated the weighted total design intake flows from the 50 weighted paper facilities totaled 11 billion gallons per day and the actual intake flows were around 5.7 billion gallons per day.


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 20946-20947]
[DOCID:fr06my09-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0045; FRL-8411-2]

Notice of Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for
Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Agency's receipt of several initial
filings of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) for
the petition of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest as shown in the body of this
document. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. 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.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have a typical or disproportionately high and adverse
human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What Action Is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that
the pesticide petitions described in this notice contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions.
Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination
on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that is the subject of this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)),
EPA is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP 8F7391. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0127). Valent BioSciences
Corporation, 870 Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048, proposes to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the biochemical plant regulator, S-Abscisic Acid; (S)-5-(1-hydroxy-
2,6,6-trimethyl-4-oxo-1-cyclohex-2-enyl)-3-methyl-penta-(2Z,4E)-dienoic
acid, in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because application will not result in
detectable residues or residues of toxicological concern.
    2. PP 9F7551. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0237). AgraQuest, Inc., 1540 Drew
Avenue, Davis, California, 95618, proposes to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical
insecticide and acaricide, Extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides near
ambrosioides Mimic (A blend of compounds simulating the already
registered active ingredient Extract of Chenopodium ambrosioides near
ambrosioides), in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because an analytical method for
residues is not applicable. It is expected that Extract of Chenopodium
ambrosioides near ambrosioides Mimic would not result in detectable
residues or residues that are of toxicological concern.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 28, 2009.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E9-10505 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4698-4700]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2009-0198; FRL-9102-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Revisions to the Administrative Rules of Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Montana
on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009. The revisions are to the
Administrative Rules of Montana. Revisions include minor editorial and
grammatical changes, updates to the citations and references to federal
laws and regulations, and a clarification of agricultural activities
exempt from control of emissions of airborne particulate matter. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 30, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 1, 2010. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2009-0198, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2009-0198. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Summary of SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's January 16, 2009 and May
4, 2009 Submittals
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    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.
    Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
    If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
    Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Summary of SIP Revisions

    A. On January 16, 2009 the State of Montana submitted formal
revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter, the ``2008
SIP revisions''). The 2008 SIP revisions contain amendments to the
following sections of the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM):
17.8.102, 17.8.301, 17.8.901, and 17.8.1007.
    B. On May 4, 2009 the State of Montana submitted formal revisions
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter, the ``2009 SIP
revisions''). The 2009 SIP revisions contain amendments to the
following sections of the ARM: 17.8.308 and 17.8.744.

III. EPA's Review of the State of Montana's January 16, 2009 and May 4,
2009 Submittals

A. 2008 SIP Revisions

    The 2008 SIP revisions are strictly administrative; they make minor
editorial and grammatical changes, and update the citations and
references to Federal laws and regulations. All of the revisions are
approvable. Therefore, in this action we are approving ARM sections
17.8.102, 17.8.301, 17.8.901, and 17.8.1007.

B. 2009 SIP Revisions

    Revision to ARM section 17.8.308 clarifies the agricultural sources
of airborne particulate matter which are exempt from control measure
provisions. The purpose of the revision is to align the ARM with
language of the legislation upon which the regulation is based. The ARM
as revised meets the requirement of the CAA section 110(l) and does not
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment. The
revision adds definition to and as a result reduces the number of
sources of airborne particulate matter which are exempt from emissions
controls under provisions of the ARM. This provision is approvable.
    The revision to ARM section 17.8.744 references the State's air
quality permitting program. The State has several provisions pending
relative to the State's air quality permitting program and these will
be processed as one action at a later date.

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the 2008 revisions to ARM sections 17.8.102,
17.8.301, 17.8.901, and 17.8.1007 that the State submitted on January
16, 2009. The Montana Board of Environmental Review adopted these
revisions on October 3, 2008 and they became effective on October 24,
2008.
    The EPA is approving the 2009 revision to ARM section 17.8.308. The
EPA is not taking action on the 2009 revision to ARM sections 17.8.744
and will take action at a later date. The Montana Board of
Environmental Review adopted these revisions on January 23, 2009 and
they became effective on February 13, 2009.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments; we are merely approving administrative and other
minor changes to Montana's air rules. However, in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are filed. This rule will
be effective March 30, 2010 without further notice unless the Agency
receives adverse comments by March 1, 2010. If the EPA receives adverse
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 March 30, 2010. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 5, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 BB--Montana

0
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(68) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (68) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan which were
submitted by the State of Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 4, 2009.
The revisions are to the Administrative Rules of Montana; they make
minor editorial and grammatical changes, update the citations and
references to Federal laws and regulations, and make other minor
changes to conform to federal regulations.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) sections 17.8.102
Incorporation by Reference--Publication Dates, 17.8.301 Definitions,
17.8.901 Definitions, and 17.8.1007 Baseline for Determining Credit for
Emissions and Air Quality Offsets, effective October 24, 2008.
    (B) Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) section 17.8.308
Particulate Matter, Airborne, effective February 13, 2009.

[FR Doc. 2010-1748 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


reflect the proposed deletion of ``System'' as a defined term from Rule
4 and Addendum K. In Procedure XV, NSCC would replace ``Qualified
Securities Depository'' with ``DTC'' to be consistent with the proposed
change in Section 1 of Rule 4.
Member Outreach
    Beginning in August 2017, NSCC conducted outreach to Members in
order to provide them with advance notice of the proposed changes. As
of the date of this filing, no written comments relating to the
proposed changes have been received in response to this outreach. The
Commission will be notified of any written comments received.
Implementation Timeframe
    Pending Commission approval, NSCC expects to implement this
proposal within two (2) business days after approval. Members would be
advised of the implementation date of this proposal through issuance of
an NSCC Important Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
of the Act \60\ and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(13) and 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i),\61\
each as promulgated under the Act, for the reasons described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \61\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13) and (e)(23)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the Rules be designed
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it
is responsible.\62\ The proposed rule changes to (1) modify the
calculation and application of NSCC's corporate contribution, (2)
introduce an Event Period, (3) introduce the concept of ``rounds'' (and
accompanying Loss Allocation Notices) and apply this concept to the
timing of loss allocation payments and the Member withdrawal process in
connection with the loss allocation process, and (4) implement a
``look-back'' period to calculate a Member's loss allocation obligation
(which would replace the current calculation of a Member's loss
allocation obligation based on the Member's activity in each of the
various services or ``Systems'' offered by NSCC) and its Loss
Allocation Cap, taken together, are intended to enhance the overall
resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By modifying the calculation of NSCC's corporate contribution, NSCC
would apply a mandatory fixed percentage of its General Business Risk
Capital Requirement (as compared to the current Rules which provide for
``no less than'' a percentage of retained earnings), which would
provide greater transparency and accessibility to Members as to how
much NSCC would contribute in the event of a loss or liability. By
modifying the application of NSCC's corporate contribution to apply to
Declared Non-Default Loss Events, in addition to Defaulting Member
Events, on a mandatory basis, NSCC would expand the application of its
corporate contribution beyond losses and liabilities from Member
impairments, which would better align the interests of NSCC with those
of its Members by stipulating a mandatory application of the Corporate
Contribution to a Declared Non-Default Loss Event prior to any
allocation of the loss among Members. Taken together, these proposed
rule changes would enhance the overall resiliency of NSCC's loss
allocation process by enhancing the calculation and application of
NSCC's Corporate Contribution, which is one of the key elements of
NSCC's loss allocation process. Moreover, by providing greater
transparency and accessibility to Members, as stated above, the
proposed rule changes regarding the Corporate Contribution, including
the proposed replenishment period, would allow Members to better assess
the adequacy of NSCC's loss allocation process.
    By introducing the concept of an Event Period, NSCC would be able
to group Defaulting Member Events and Declared Non-Default Loss Events
occurring in a period of ten (10) business days for purposes of
allocating losses to Members. NSCC believes that the Event Period would
provide a defined structure for the loss allocation process to
encompass potential sequential Defaulting Member Events or Declared
Non-Default Loss Events that are likely to be closely linked to an
initial event and/or market dislocation episode. Having this structure
would enhance the overall resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process
because NSCC would be better equipped to address losses that may arise
from multiple Defaulting Member Events and/or Declared Non-Default Loss
Events that arise in quick succession. Moreover, the proposed Event
Period structure would provide certainty for Members concerning their
maximum exposure to mutualized losses with respect to such events.
    By introducing the concept of ``rounds'' (and accompanying Loss
Allocation Notices) and applying this concept to the timing of loss
allocation payments and the Member withdrawal process in connection
with the loss allocation process, NSCC would (i) set forth a defined
amount that it would allocate to Members during each round (i.e., the
round cap), (ii) advise Members of loss allocation obligation
information as well as round information through the issuance of Loss
Allocation Notices, and (iii) provide Members with the option to limit
their loss allocation exposure after the issuance of the first Loss
Allocation Notice in each round. These proposed rule changes would
enhance the overall resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process
because they would enable NSCC to continue the loss allocation process
in successive rounds until all of NSCC's losses are allocated and
enable NSCC to identify continuing Members for purposes of calculating
subsequent loss allocation obligations in successive rounds. Moreover,
the proposed rule changes would define for Members a clear manner and
process in which they could cap their loss allocation exposure to NSCC.
    By implementing a ``look-back'' period to calculate a Member's loss
allocation obligations and its Loss Allocation Cap, NSCC would
discourage Members from reducing their settlement activity during a
time of stress primarily to limit their loss allocation obligations. By
determining a Member's loss allocation obligations based on the average
of its Required Fund Deposit over a look-back period and its Loss

Allocation Cap based on the greater of its Required Fund Deposit or the
average thereof over a look-back period, NSCC would be able to
calculate a Member's pro rata share of losses and liabilities based on
the amount of risk that the Member brings to NSCC. These proposed rule
changes would enhance the overall resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation
process because they would deter Members from reducing their settlement
activity during a time of stress primarily to limit their Loss
Allocation Caps.
    Taken together, the foregoing proposed rule changes would establish
a stronger (for all the reasons discussed above) and clearer loss
allocation process for NSCC, which NSCC believes would allow it to take
timely action to address losses. The ability to timely address losses
would allow NSCC to continue to meet its clearance and settlement
obligations, especially in circumstances that may involve a series of
substantially contemporaneous loss events. Therefore, NSCC believes
that these proposed rule changes would promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
    By reducing the time within which NSCC is required to return a
former Member's Clearing Fund deposit, NSCC would enable firms that
have exited NSCC to have access to their funds sooner than under the
current Rules while at the same time protecting NSCC and its provision
of clearance and settlement services because such return would only
occur if all obligations of the terminating Member to NSCC have been
satisfied. As such, NSCC would maintain the requisite level of Clearing
Fund deposit to ensure that it can continue to meet its clearance and
settlement obligations. Therefore, NSCC believes that this proposed
rule change would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
    The proposed rule changes to NSCC's voluntary termination
provisions would improve the clarity of the Rules and help to ensure
that NSCC's voluntary termination process is transparent and clear to
Members. Having clear voluntary termination provisions would enable
Members to better understand NSCC's voluntary termination process and
provide Members with increased predictability and certainty regarding
their rights and obligations with respect to such process. Enabling
Members to readily understand NSCC's voluntary termination process and
their rights and obligations in connection therewith would help the
withdrawing Member and the membership at large to know when a Member is
no longer a Member of NSCC for clearance and settlement and would
thereby promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.
    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act requires, in part, that NSCC
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to ensure NSCC has the authority and
operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and
continue to meet its obligations.\63\ As described above, the proposed
rule changes to (1) modify the calculation and application of NSCC's
corporate contribution, (2) introduce an Event Period, (3) introduce
the concept of ``rounds'' (and accompanying Loss Allocation Notices)
and apply this concept to the timing of loss allocation payments and
the Member withdrawal process in connection with the loss allocation
process, and (4) implement a ``look-back'' period to calculate a
Member's loss allocation obligation (which would replace the current
calculation of a Member's loss allocation obligation based on the
Member's activity in each of the various services or ``Systems''
offered by NSCC) and its Loss Allocation Cap, taken together, are
designed to enhance the resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process.
Having a resilient loss allocation process would help ensure that NSCC
can effectively and timely address losses relating to or arising out of
either the default of one or more Members or one or more non-default
loss events, which in turn would help NSCC contain losses and continue
to meet its clearance and settlement obligations. Therefore, NSCC
believes that the proposed rule changes to enhance the resiliency of
NSCC's loss allocation process are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13)
under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires NSCC to establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to publicly disclose all relevant rules and
material procedures, including key aspects of NSCC's default rules and
procedures.\64\ The proposed rule changes to (i) align the loss
allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing Agencies, (ii) improve the
overall transparency and accessibility of the provisions in the Rules
governing loss allocation, and (iii) make conforming and technical
changes, would not only ensure that NSCC's loss allocation rules are,
to the extent practicable and appropriate, consistent with the loss
allocation rules of other DTCC Clearing Agencies, but also would help
to ensure that NSCC's loss allocation rules are transparent and clear
to Members. Aligning the loss allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing
Agencies would provide consistent treatment, to the extent practicable
and appropriate, especially for firms that are participants of two or
more DTCC Clearing Agencies. Having transparent and clear loss
allocation rules would enable Members to better understand the key
aspects of NSCC's default rules and procedures and provide Members with
increased predictability and certainty regarding their exposures and
obligations. As such, NSCC believes that the proposed rule changes to
align the loss allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing Agencies as well
as to improve the overall transparency and accessibility of NSCC's loss
allocation rules are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i) under the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the proposed rule changes to NSCC's voluntary
termination provisions would improve the clarity of the Rules and help
to ensure that NSCC's voluntary termination process is transparent and
clear to Members. Having clear voluntary termination provisions would
enable Members to better understand NSCC's voluntary termination
process and provide Members with increased predictability and certainty
regarding their rights and obligations with respect to such process. As
such, NSCC believes that the proposed rule changes to the voluntary
termination provision are also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(i)
under the Act.

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule changes to enhance the
resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process would impact
competition.\65\ As described above, the proposed rule changes to (1)
modify the calculation and application of NSCC's corporate
contribution, (2) introduce an Event Period, (3) introduce the concept
of ``rounds'' (and accompanying Loss Allocation Notices) and apply this
concept to the timing of loss allocation payments and the Member
withdrawal process in connection with the loss allocation process, and
(4) implement a ``look-back'' period to calculate a Member's loss
allocation obligation (which would replace the current calculation of a
Member's loss

allocation obligation based on the Member's activity in each of the
various services or ``Systems'' offered by NSCC) and its Loss
Allocation Cap, taken together, are intended to enhance the overall
resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process, and would apply equally
to all Members. While the proposed rule changes would amend the manner
in which NSCC's corporate contribution and loss allocation are
calculated and applied, such proposed rule changes would maintain
NSCC's current core loss allocation waterfall in the case of a loss
relating to or arising out of the default of a Member for whom NSCC has
ceased to act following application of the defaulting Member's
resources, i.e., NSCC's corporate contribution and loss allocation
among Members. With respect to a loss or liability arising from a non-
default loss event, the proposed rule changes clarify NSCC's
contribution to such loss and liability, but, as with losses and
liabilities arising from a Member default event, the proposed rule
changes would maintain the loss mutualization requirement under the
current Rule 4. While the calculation of the loss obligations
associated with non-default losses would change under the proposal,
NSCC would maintain this aspect of the loss allocation waterfall (i.e.,
loss mutualization among Members for non-default losses). Based on the
foregoing, NSCC believes that these proposed rule changes to enhance
the resiliency of NSCC's loss allocation process would not have any
impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC does not believe the proposed rule change to reduce the time
within which NSCC is required to return a former Member's Clearing Fund
deposit would impact competition.\66\ This proposed rule change is
intended to enable firms who have exited NSCC to have use of their
Clearing Fund deposit sooner, while at the same time protecting NSCC
because such return would only occur if all obligations of the
terminated Member to NSCC have been satisfied. While the proposed rule
change would reduce the applicable timeframe, it does not change the
requirement that the return occur after all obligations to NSCC have
been satisfied and the proposed rule change would apply equally to all
Members. Based on the foregoing, NSCC believes that the proposed rule
change to reduce the time within which NSCC is required to return a
former Member's Clearing Fund deposit would not have any impact on
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSCC also does not believe that the proposed rule changes to (i)
align the loss allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing Agencies, (ii)
increase the transparency and accessibility of provisions in the Rules
governing loss allocation, (iii) clarify NSCC's voluntary termination
provisions, and (iv) make conforming and technical changes, would
impact competition.\67\ These changes would apply equally to all
Members. Alignment of the loss allocation rules of the DTCC Clearing
Agencies are intended to increase the consistency of the Rules with the
rules of other DTCC Clearing Agencies in order to provide consistent
treatment, to the extent practicable and appropriate, especially for
firms that are participants of two or more DTCC Clearing Agencies.
Having transparent and accessible provisions in the Rules governing
loss allocation are intended to improve the readability and clarity of
the Rules regarding the loss allocation process. Clarifying NSCC's
voluntary termination provisions would improve the clarity of the Rules
and help to ensure that NSCC's voluntary termination process is
transparent and clear to Members. Making conforming and technical
changes to ensure the Rules remain clear and accurate would facilitate
Members' understanding of the Rules and their obligations thereunder.
As such, NSCC believes that these proposed rule changes would not have
any impact on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NSCC-2017-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-018. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the Proposed Rule Change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the Proposed
Rule Change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2017-018 and should be submitted on
or before August 3, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15368 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8812-8813]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04386]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0191; FRL-9990-41-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Multistate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0191. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On March 23, 2017, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) submitted a request for EPA to approve its infrastructure SIP
for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 14, 2018 (83 FR
56777), EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing
with requirements one and two (otherwise known as ``prongs'' one and
two) of the provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision
\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are four prongs to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)``good
neighbor'' provision, which are: Prohibit any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong one); prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong
two); prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state (prong three);
and protect visibility in another state (prong four).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The March 23, 2017 MDEQ submittal included a demonstration that
Michigan's SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the
interstate transport of pollution. Michigan's submittal also included a
technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that demonstrates that current controls
are adequate for Michigan to show that it meets prongs one and two of
the ``good neighbor'' provision. After review, EPA proposed to approve
Michigan's request relating to prongs one and two of the ``good
neighbor'' provision.

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

    Our November 14, 2018 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and
comment period. The comment period closed on December 14, 2018. EPA
received two supportive comments.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Michigan's March
23, 2017 submission certifying that the current Michigan SIP is
sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set
forth above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as

appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2019. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 21, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) under the heading
``Infrastructure'' is amended by revising the entry for ``Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic or
            provision                 nonattainment area         State submittal date               EPA approval date                   Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure  Statewide.................  7/10/2014 and               3/12/2019, [Insert Federal Register   Fully approved for all
 Requirements for the 2012                                     3/23/2017................   citation].                            CAA elements except the
 particulate matter (PM2.5)                                                                                visibility protection
 NAAQS.                                                                                requirements of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-04386 Filed 3-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 201 (Friday, October 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65729-65732]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0447; FRL-10014-31]

Methyl Bromide; Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of the fumigant methyl bromide, including its metabolites and
degradates in or on imported/domestic agricultural commodities in
fruit, citrus, group 10-10. This action is in response to EPA's
granting a quarantine exemption under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide
on commodities within fruit, citrus, group 10-10. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of methyl bromide
in or on these commodities. The time-limited tolerance expires on
December 31, 2023.

DATES: This regulation is effective October 16, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 15, 2020
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-2017-0447, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 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 Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0447 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 December 15, 2020. 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-2017-0447, 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://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a (1)(6), is
establishing a time-limited tolerance for residues of methyl bromide in
or on agricultural commodities in fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2 parts
per million (ppm). By establishing a tolerance for specific commodities
in this citrus fruit crop group, methyl bromide fumigation will be
supported for the following crops: Australian desert lime, Australian
finger lime, Australian round lime, Brown River finger lime,
Calamondin, Citron, Citrus hybrids, Grapefruit, Japanese summer
grapefruit, Kumquat, Lemon, Lime, Mediterranean Mandarin, Mount White
Lime, New Guinea wild lime, Orange, sour, Orange, sweet, Pummelo,
Russell River lime, Satsuma mandarin, Sweet lime, Tachibana orange,
Tahiti Lime, Tangelo, Tangerine (Mandarin), Tangor, Trifoliate orange,
and cultivars and/or hybrids of Unique fruit and varieties. The time-
limited tolerance expires on December 31, 2023.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such

tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for
public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on FIFRA section 18
related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents for the
application of FFDCA section 408 and its safety standard to other
tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to
establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Methyl Bromide on Commodities in Fruit,
Citrus, Group 10-10 and FFDCA Tolerance

    The U.S. Department of Agricultural/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA/APHIS/PPQ)
Division has requested an amendment to 40 CFR 180.124 to allow methyl
bromide fumigation of citrus hybrids from Chile. EPA has previously
authorized quarantine exemptions under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
methyl bromide on various agricultural commodities for post-harvest
control of imported, invasive, non-indigenous, quarantine plant pests
in the United States. Methyl bromide fumigation is currently registered
for certain individual citrus crops, but not citrus hybrids in citrus
fruit group 10-10.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of methyl
bromide in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 commodities. In doing so,
EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA
decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the quarantine exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that
commodities bearing safe levels of residues may be lawfully distributed
in commerce. EPA is issuing this tolerance without notice and
opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6).
Although the time-limited tolerance of 2 ppm for fruit, citrus, group
10-10 expires on December 31, 2023, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5),
residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the
tolerance remaining in or on citrus hybrid agricultural commodities in
citrus, fruit group 10-10 after that date will not be unlawful,
provided the pesticide was applied in a manner that is lawful under
FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by
the time-limited tolerance in fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at the time of
that application. EPA will take action to revoke the time-limited
tolerance of 2 ppm in fruit, citrus, group 10-10 earlier if any
experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on
this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
    Because the time-limited tolerance in fruit, citrus, group 10-10 is
being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any
decisions about whether methyl bromide meets FIFRA's registration
requirements for use on the specified agricultural citrus commodities
or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate.
Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this time-limited
tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration of methyl bromide
by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does
this time-limited tolerance by itself serve as the authority for any
person to make emergency use this pesticide; emergency use on the
applicable crops is permitted only as specified in the quarantine
exemption issued to the Plant Protection and Quarantine Division of the
United States Department of Agriculture and, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. For additional information regarding the emergency
exemption for methyl bromide, contact the Agency's Registration
Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerance for residues of methyl bromide in or on
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 2 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing this time-limited tolerance follows.
    In the Federal Register on March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8758) (FRL-9971-
19), EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances for residues of
methyl bromide in or on or various imported/domestic agricultural
commodities based on the Agency's determination that aggregate exposure
to methyl bromide resulting from the residues subject to those
tolerances is safe for the U.S. general population, including infants
and children. Because the toxicity profile for methyl bromide has not
changed since that last rule was published, EPA is incorporating the
discussion of that profile (Unit III.A.) and the identified
toxicological endpoints (Unit III.B.) as part of this rulemaking.

    EPA's most recent comprehensive risk assessment dated December 17,
2018 remains an up-to-date assessment of the toxicity of, and dietary
and aggregate exposures to, methyl bromide resulting from agricultural
soil fumigation uses and a variety of non-agricultural uses such as
commodity fumigations. Methyl bromide is not registered for any
specific residential use patterns. In that December 2018 risk
assessment, EPA did not aggregate short-, intermediate-term, or chronic
dietary or inhalation exposures to methyl bromide because endpoints for
dietary and inhalation exposures for these durations are not based on
common toxicological effects. Similarly, no quantitative cancer
assessment was conducted or is required for methyl bromide based on the
Agency's having classified methyl bromide as of ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Further information about EPA's risk
assessments and determination of safety supporting the tolerances
established in the March 1, 2018 Federal Register action, as well as
the new methyl bromide time-limited tolerance can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the documents entitled ``Methyl Bromide. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Section 18 Emergency Exemption Use on
USDA APHIS PPQ Commodities,'' dated September 13, 2013, ``Methyl
Bromide. Section 18 Emergency Quarantine Exemption Use on Commodities
Requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA/APHIS/PPQ)
Division,'' dated May 2, 2017, and ``Methyl Bromide. Amended Section 18
Emergency Quarantine Exemption for Use on Citrus Fruit Group 10-10 as
Requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA/APHIS/PPQ)
Division,'' dated May 7, 2018, respectively. All these documents can be
found in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0447.
    The acute and chronic dietary risk estimates for methyl bromide are
partially refined since they incorporate anticipated residues, assume
no methyl bromide residues are present in cooked commodities or in
processed commodities subjected to heat, but include no adjustments for
percent crop treated (PCT) (i.e., 100 PCT is assumed). The acute and
chronic dietary estimates for methyl bromide were found not to be of
concern for the U.S. general population and all population subgroups.
Acute dietary risks for methyl bromide are below the Agency's LOC: 3.3%
of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group with
the highest exposure; and chronic risks are below the Agency's LOC: 38%
of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the highest
exposure level.
    There are no residential uses of methyl bromide. Non-occupational
and ambient exposures are not typically aggregated with dietary
exposures because the former is isolated and sporadic in nature, and
the likelihood of having a significant food exposure occuring
concurrently with a significant non-occupational exposure is
negligible.
    Therefore, the aggregate exposure assessments are equivalent to the
dietary risk assessments.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the U.S. general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to methyl bromide residues. More detailed
information on the subject action to establish a tolerance in or on
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
in the document entitled, ``Methyl Bromide. Amended Section 18
Emergency Quarantine Exemption for Use on Citrus Fruit Group 10-10 as
Requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service/Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA/APHIS/PPQ)
Division.'' This document can be found in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2017-0447.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (King headspace method, J.
Agricultural Food Chemistry, Vol 29, No. 5, pp 1003-1005) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression. This method is a gas
chromatography/electron capture (GC/EC) method that was validated in
1987 in the EPA Environmental Chemistry Laboratory (D168869, L. Cheng,
27-OCT-1992). The headspace procedure for determining methyl bromide
has been forwarded to FDA for inclusion in PAM Vol. II. This method is
adequate for data collection and for tolerance enforcement on plant and
processed food commodities.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Methyl bromide Codex MRLs have been established for several
commodities; however, there are no Codex MRLs for any of the
commodities that are the subject of this quarantine action.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of
the fumigant methyl bromide, including its metabolites and degradates
for the citrus fruit crop group, 10-10. Compliance with the tolerance
level is to be determined by measuring only methyl bromide residues, in
or on commodities in fruit, citrus, group 10-10. This tolerance expires
on December 31, 2023.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this 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), nor is
it considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled
``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') 82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017. This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled

``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in support of
a FIFRA section 18 emergency exemption do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, but does not directly regulate 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 (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 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. 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 180

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

    Dated: September 11, 2020.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.124 amend paragraph (b) by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and redesignating the table as Table
2 to paragraph (b); and
0
b. Amending newly designated Table 2 to paragraph (b) by adding, in
alphabetical order, the entry ``Fruit, citrus, group 10-10''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  180.124  Methyl Bromide; tolerance for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. A time-limited tolerance is
established for residues of the fumigant methyl bromide, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the specified agricultural
commodity in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance level
specified below is to be determined by measuring only methyl bromide,
in or on the commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant
to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 18
emergency exemptions. The tolerance expires and is revoked on the date
specified in the table.

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Parts per    Expiration
                   Commodity                      million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10....................            2   12/31/2023

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2020-21199 Filed 10-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P