[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32034-32038]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0207; FRL-9927-66]

Aluminum Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of aluminum sulfate (CAS Reg. No. 10043-01-
3) under 40 CFR 180.940(a). This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of aluminum sulfate.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 5, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 4, 2015, 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-2012-0207, 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>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp and
select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section
408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2012-0207 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 August 4, 2015. 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-2012-0207, 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

    In the Federal Register of May 2, 2012, (77 FR 25954) (FRL-9346-1),
EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP
1E7933) by Exponent Inc., 1150 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1100,
Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of Ecolab, Inc., 370 N. Wabasha Street,
St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.940(a)
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of aluminum sulfate for use as an inert
ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-
contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment,
and food-processing equipment and utensils at a maximum end use
concentration not to exceed 50 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
Exponent,

Inc., which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which 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. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by
aluminum sulfate is discussed in this unit.
    The acute oral toxicity of aluminum sulfate is low. The acute oral
lethal dose (LD)50 in male rats is >5,000 milligram/kilogram
(mg/kg). No acute dermal or inhalation toxicity studies are available
on aluminum sulfate. It is not a dermal irritant and is minimally
irritating to the eyes. No skin sensitization studies are available.
    The points of departure (PODs) used for the chronic and short-term
risk assessments for aluminum sulfate were based on an Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guideline 416, 2-generation
rat oral reproduction study with aluminum sulfate (equivalent to OCSPP
Harmonized Test Guideline 870.3800) in which the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect level (LOAEL) was 188 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)
(equivalent to 37 mg aluminum (Al)/kg/day) based on decreased body
weight from pups and parents and delay in vaginal opening. The no-
observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 41 mg/kg/day aluminum sulfate
(equivalent to 8.06 mg Al/kg/day.
    Apart from the 2-generation rat oral reproduction study described
above, limited data are available on aluminum sulfate. However, since
ingested aluminum sulfate will readily dissociate in the stomach to
aluminum (as will many other aluminum compounds), toxicology data on
aluminum compounds as well as aluminum sulfate are considered in
determining the acceptability and completeness of the toxicological
data relevant to aluminum sulfate.
    Aluminum compounds have been evaluated by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR, 2008) and as part of the
toxicological profile of aluminum, ASTDR notes that ``There is a rather
extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These
studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive
target of aluminum toxicity and most of the animal studies have focused
on neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental toxicity. Other adverse effects
that have been observed in animals orally exposed to aluminum include
impaired erythropoiesis in rats exposed to 230 mg Al/kg/day and higher;
erythrocyte damage (as evidenced by decreases in hemoglobin,
hematocrit, and erythrocyte osmotic fragility, and altered erythrocyte
morphology) in rats exposed to 230 mg Al/kg/day and higher; increased
susceptibility to infection in mouse dams exposed to 155 mg Al/kg/day;
delays in pup maturation following exposure of rats to 53 mg Al/kg/day;
and decreases in pup body weight gain in rats and mice exposed to 103
mg Al/kg/day and higher. Oral studies in rats and mice have not found
significant histopathological changes in the brain under typical
exposure conditions; however, altered myelination was found in the
spinal cord of mouse pups exposed to 330 mg Al/kg/day on gestation day
1 through postnatal day 35. Overt signs of neurotoxicity are rarely
reported at the doses tested in the available animal studies (<=330mg
Al/kg/day for bioavailable aluminum compounds); rather, exposure to
these doses is associated with subtle neurological effects detected
with neurobehavioral performance tests. Significant alterations in
motor function, sensory function, and cognitive function have been
detected following exposure to adult or weanling rats and mice or
following gestation and/or lactation exposure of rats and mice to
aluminum lactate, aluminum nitrate, and aluminum chloride. The most
consistently affected performance tests were forelimb and/or hindlimb
grip strength, spontaneous motor activity, thermal sensitivity, and
startle responsiveness. Significant impairments in cognitive function
have been observed in some studies, although this has not been found in
other studies even at higher doses. Adverse neurological effects have
been observed in rats and mice at doses of 100-200 mg Al/kg/day and
neurodevelopmental effects have been observed in rats and mice at doses
of 103-330 mg Al/kg/day.''
    There are no available carcinogenicity studies with aluminum
sulfate; however, in a cancer study with aluminum potassium sulfate,
there were no exposure-related increased incidences of tumors, other
proliferative lesions, or non-neoplastic lesions in B6C3F1 mice that
ingested <=979 mg Al/kg/day as aluminum potassium sulfate in the diet
for 20 months. Based on this information, aluminum sulfate is not
expected to be a carcinogen.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by aluminum sulfate as well as the NOAEL and the
LOAEL from the toxicity studies are discussed in ``Aluminum Sulfate:
Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment for
Proposed Exemption from the Requirement for a Tolerance When Used as an
Inert Ingredient in Antimicrobial Pesticide Formulations Applied to
Food-Contact Surfaces'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0267.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological POD and levels of concern to use in evaluating
the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that
have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the
toxicological POD is used as the basis

for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are
developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each
toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the
LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in
conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally
referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a RfD--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for aluminum sulfate used
for human risk assessment is discussed below:
    Acute Dietary Endpoint. No appropriate endpoint was identified from
any of the aluminum sulfate studies in the database, including
developmental toxicity studies in the rat. Consequently, EPA determined
that there was no basis for selecting a dose and endpoint for an acute
POD for the general population or females 13-49 years old.
    Chronic Dietary Endpoint. A 2-generation reproduction study of
aluminum sulfate in rats was considered critical in establishing the
POD for chronic dietary risk assessment. The study supports a NOAEL of
41 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 188 mg/kg/day for decreased body weight in
parents and pups and a delay in vaginal opening and should be used as
the POD for all durations and exposure scenarios. An uncertainty factor
(UF) of 100X (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for
intraspecies variation) is applied to obtain a chronic reference dose
(cRfD) of 0.41 mg/kg/day. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) factor
is reduced to 1X. The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is 0.41
mg/kg/day. This cPAD is protective of potential neurotoxicological
effects of aluminum compounds.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Exposures to aluminum
sulfate can occur following ingestion of foods with residues from food-
contact surface sanitizing solutions for public eating places, treated
dairy- and food-processing equipment and utensils as well as pre-
harvest crop uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to aluminum sulfate,
EPA considered exposure under the requested exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance as well as exposures from existing uses of
aluminum sulfate under the extant exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
aluminum sulfate in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide chemical, if a
toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of
concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such
effects were identified in the toxicological studies for aluminum
sulfate; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. The chronic dietary exposure assessment for
this inert ingredient utilizes the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID), Version 3.16, EPA, which
includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, ``What
We Eat In America'', (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted
from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert
ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model that
assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no
higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient
on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would
be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient
(if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the
scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher
than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100
percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a
person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of
the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the
absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl
Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food
and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the
Inerts'' (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    Additionally, a dietary exposure assessment of aluminum sulfate
resulting from the requested use in antimicrobial food-contact surface
sanitizing solutions was conservatively assumed that 100% of the diet
results from food treated with food-contact surface sanitizers and that
100% of the sanitizing solution is transferred into food. A highly
conservative model based on FDA assumptions regarding transfer of food
contact sanitizing solution residues to food is utilized.
    The dietary exposure values derived from both the conservative
model used to estimate residues from application to growing crops are
combined with the exposures estimated from the antimicrobial food-
contact sanitizer uses.
    iii Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that aluminum sulfate is not expected to pose a cancer risk
to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for aluminum sulfate, a
conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 parts per
billion (ppb) based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessment
of aluminum sulfate. This value was directly entered into the dietary
exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    There are no registered pesticide products containing aluminum
sulfate as an inert ingredient for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found aluminum sulfate to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and aluminum sulfate does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
aluminum sulfate does not

have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In a 2-generation
reproduction toxicity study, there was no evidence of increased
susceptibility of infants and children to aluminum sulfate. In this
study, the offspring and parental toxicity NOAEL was 41 mg/kg/day based
on decreased weight gain in offspring, decreased body weight in
parental animals, and a delay in vaginal opening seen at the LOAEL of
188 mg/kg/day.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for aluminum sulfate includes a 2-
generation reproduction study, as well as chronic/carcinogenicity
studies, mutagenicity studies, neurotoxicity studies and developmental
neurotoxicity studies on other related aluminum compounds. The Agency
concludes that for this ingredient, the results of these studies
provide a reliable basis for assessing the range of potential effects
to infants and children, such that the Agency has determined that no
additional data are necessary at this time to evaluate effects to
infants and children.
    ii. There are available data on neurotoxicity and developmental
neurotoxicity on aluminum compounds. The point of departure selected
for risk assessment is based on a 2-generation rat reproductive
toxicity study with aluminum sulfate, in which adverse effects were
identified at dose levels below the dose levels at which neurotoxic
effects or developmental neurotoxicological effects were observed and
is therefore protective of those effects; no additional UFs are
required to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility due to pre-or
post-natal exposure to aluminum in infants and children.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and residues equivalent to the highest established
tolerance-level residues for every food commodity. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions utilizing a 100 ppb default value
in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
aluminum sulfate in drinking water. In addition, highly conservative
assumptions were utilized in assessing exposures to aluminum sulfate
resulting from the proposed use in food-contact surface antimicrobial
pesticide formulations. These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by aluminum sulfate.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and cPAD. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated
by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential
exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified, therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not
conducted.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
aluminum sulfate from food and water will utilize 6.7% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). A short-term/
intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, aluminum
sulfate is not used as inert ingredient in any pesticide product
registered for any use patterns that would result in short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure. Because there is no short-term
or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure
has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD
(which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term
risk), no further assessment of short-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short-term
risk for aluminum sulfate.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in a rodent carcinogenicity study with
aluminum potassium sulfate, aluminum sulfate is not expected to pose a
cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to aluminum sulfate residues.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation. EPA is establishing a
limitation on the amount of aluminum sulfate that may be used in food-
contact surface antimicrobial applications. That limitation will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et
seq. EPA will not register any food-contact surface antimicrobial
applications for sale or distribution that contains greater than 50 ppm
of aluminum sulfate by weight.

VIII. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of aluminum
sulfate for use as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide
formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places,
dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils
at a maximum end use concentration not to exceed 50 ppm.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

X. 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: May 29, 2015.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.940, add alphabetically the following inert ingredient
to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.940  Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pesticide chemical          CAS Reg. No.           Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Aluminum sulfate...............      10043-01-3   When ready for use,
                                                   the end-use
                                                   concentration is not
                                                   to exceed 50 ppm.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-13821 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14030]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1422-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RockTenn CP, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 25, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 5, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05327 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69884-69889]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28659]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0012; FRL-9226-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking a direct final action to approve portions of
four revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) that create
and amend the Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances (EBTA)
Program. The EBTA Program establishes a cap and trade program to reduce
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) from participating electric generating facilities. The
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) originally submitted
the EBTA program to EPA as a SIP revision on January 3, 2000. Since
that time, the TCEQ has submitted SIP revisions for the EBTA Program on
September 11, 2000; July 15, 2002; and October 24, 2006. EPA has
determined that these changes to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal
Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations, are consistent with
EPA policies, and will improve air quality. This action is being taken
under section 110 and parts C and D of the Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on January 18, 2011 without
further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by
December 16, 2010. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that
this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2005-TX-0012, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     Fax: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-
R), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD-
R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0012. 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 the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that 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 along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. 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
and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    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
the disclosure of which 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
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be charged for
making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check
in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal related to this SIP revision, and which is part
of the EPA docket, is also available for public inspection at the State
Air Agency listed below during official business hours by appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's direct final action, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R),
Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever any
reference to ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What did Texas submit?
III. What is the Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances
Program?
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the Emissions Banking and Trading of
Allowances Program?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Taking?

    We are taking direct final action to approve portions of four
revisions to the Texas SIP submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on January 3, 2000; September 11, 2000;
July 15, 2002; and October 24, 2006. These four revisions create and
amend the Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances Program at 30
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2.
Specifically, we are approving through direct final action the adoption
of 30 TAC sections 101.330-101.336, submitted on January 3, 2000; the
revisions to 30 TAC section 101.333 submitted on September 11, 2000;
the adoption of new 30 TAC section 101.338 submitted on July 15, 2002;
and the revisions to 30 TAC section 101.338 and the adoption of new 30
TAC section 101.339 submitted on October 24, 2006. Our analysis as
presented in this rulemaking action and the accompanying Technical
Support Document finds these revisions to the Texas SIP to be
consistent with the CAA, 40 CFR Part 51, and EPA's Economic Incentive
Program Guidance, ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs'' (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001).
    EPA's direct final approval of the EBTA program does not extend to
the portions of the 4 SIP revisions that are not related to the EBTA
program. Section II of this rulemaking action, titled ``What Did Texas
Submit?'' further explains the state's SIP submittals and EPA's actions
on the non-EBTA program provisions.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no relevant adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This direct final rule will be effective on
January 18, 2011 without further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse comment by December 16, 2010. If we receive relevant adverse
comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please
note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

II. What did Texas submit?

    The TCEQ has submitted four SIP revisions concerning the EBTA
Program. Below is an itemized listing of each of these submittals which
details all sections submitted for EPA review and any rulemaking
actions taken to date on these submissions.

January 3, 2000

     On December 16, 1999, the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) (the predecessor agency to the TCEQ)
adopted new provisions establishing the EBTA program, pursuant to
Senate Bill 7, 76th Legislature, 1999 (SB 7). These new provisions
created 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2, Sections 101.330-
101.337. Governor George W. Bush submitted these provisions as a SIP
revision in a letter dated January 3, 2000, for rule log number 99033-
116-AI.
     On December 16, 1999, TNRCC also adopted new provisions at
30 TAC Chapter 116, Sections 116.18, 116.910-116.914, 116.916, 116.920-
116.922, 116.930, and 116.931 concerning the permitting of
grandfathered electric generating facilities, also pursuant to Senate
Bill 7. These provisions were also submitted to EPA on January 3, 2000,
as part of rule project number 99033-116-AI.
     EPA is taking separate action on the provisions for the
permitting of grandfathered electric generating facilities at 30 TAC
Chapter 116, Sections 116.18, 116.910-116.914, 116.916, 116.920-
116.922, 116.930, and

116.931.\1\ See 75 FR 64235, October 19, 2010 at docket EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A grandfathered facility is defined as a facility that is
not a new facility, was constructed prior to August 30, 1971 (or no
construction contract was executed on or before August 30, 1971 that
specified a beginning construction date on or before February 29,
1972) and has not been modified since August 30, 1971. EPA SIP-
approved this definition on April 14, 2010, see 75 FR 19468.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 11, 2000

     On August 9, 2000, the TNRCC adopted amendments to the
EBTA program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2, Section
101.333. Governor George W. Bush submitted these amendments as a SIP
revision in a letter dated September 11, 2000, for rule log number
1999-029B-116-AI.
     On August 9, 2000, TNRCC also adopted amendments to 30 TAC
Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Section 101.27 for revised emission fees
calculations. The TNRCC also adopted amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116,
Sections 116.10, 116.110, 116.116, 116.603, 116.620, 116.621, 116.710,
116.715, 116.721, 116.722 and 116.750 pursuant to Senate Bill 766, 76th
Legislature, 1999. All of these provisions were submitted to EPA on
September 11, 2000, as part of rule log number 1999-029B-116-AI.
     On December 28, 2009, EPA returned the submittal of 30 TAC
101.27 to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as part
of the Title V Operating Permit Program rather than a Title I program
that is implemented through the SIP. TCEQ submitted a letter on January
14, 2010, concurring with our assessment and withdrawing 30 TAC 101.27
from consideration as a SIP submittal.
     On November 14, 2003, EPA approved the amendments to 30
TAC Sections 116.110, 116.116, and 116.603. See 68 FR 64548.
     On April 14, 2010, EPA approved the amendments to 30 TAC
Section 116.10(6) submitted on September 11, 2000. Also in this action
EPA disapproved the amendments to 30 TAC Section 116.10(2) and took no
action on 30 TAC Section 116.10(5)(F). See 75 FR 19468.
     On June 30, 2010, EPA issued a final disapproval of the
Texas Flexible Permits Program, including disapproval of 30 TAC
Sections 116.710, 116.715, 116.721, 116.722, and 116.750 submitted on
September 11, 2000. See (75 FR 41312, July 15, 2010).
     The amendments to 30 TAC Section 116.620 remain open for
review and action by EPA at a later date. EPA is under a consent decree
deadline to take final action no later than October 31, 2011.
     The amendments to 30 TAC Section 116.621 were repealed by
the TCEQ on March 1, 2006, as part of Rule Project Number 2003-066-116-
PR. No further action is needed by EPA on this section.

July 15, 2002

     On March 13, 2002, the TNRCC adopted new provisions in the
EBTA Program for emission reductions achieved outside the United States
at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2, Section 101.338. The
Chairman of the TNRCC, Mr. Robert J. Huston, submitted this section as
a SIP revision in a letter dated July 15, 2002, for rule project number
2001-063-101-AI.
     On March 13, 2002, the TNRCC also adopted revisions to the
Emission Credit Banking and Trading Program (referred to elsewhere in
this document as the Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) Program) at 30 TAC
Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 1, Section 101.302; the Mass
Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101,
Subchapter H, Division 3, Section 101.357, and the Discrete Emission
Credit Banking and Trading Program (referred to elsewhere in this
document as the Discrete Emission Reduction Credit (DERC) Program) at
30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 4, Section 101.372. The
TNRCC also adopted new 30 TAC 117.571. All of these provisions were
also submitted to EPA on July 15, 2002, as part of rule project number
2001-063-101-AI.
     EPA fully approved the amendments to section 101.302 on
September 6, 2006. See 71 FR 52698.
     EPA conditionally approved the amendments to section
101.372 on September 6, 2006. See 71 FR 52703. The conditional approval
of the DERC Program was converted to a full approval on May 18, 2010.
See 75 FR 27644.
     EPA has taken no action to date on new section 101.357.
This section is severable from our analysis and action on the EBTA
program because the MECT Program is a separate, stand-alone cap and
trade program specific to the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) ozone
nonattainment area. This action remains open for review and action at a
later date by EPA.
     EPA has taken no action to date on new section 117.571.
This section is severable from our analysis and action on the EBTA
program because section 117.571 establishes provisions to allow the
substitution of emissions reductions achieved under the Texas Emission
Reduction Program (TERP) for NOX emission reductions
required in the HGB and Dallas/Fort Worth ozone nonattainment areas.
This section remains open for review and action at a later date by EPA.

October 24, 2006

     On October 4, 2006, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) adopted the repeal of 30 TAC Section 101.338 and new 30
TAC Sections 101.338 and 101.339. The Chairman of the TCEQ, Ms.
Kathleen Hartnett White, submitted these provisions as a SIP revision
in a letter dated October 24, 2006, for rule project number 2005-054-
101-PR. In this SIP submittal cover letter, Chairman White requested
that EPA take no federal action on 30 TAC Section 101.337 submitted on
January 3, 2000; section 101.337 establishes requirements unique to the
El Paso Region which will be state only requirements.
     On October 4, 2006, TCEQ also adopted revisions to the ERC
program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Sections 101.302, 101.305 and 101.306 to
address the mandates of Texas Senate Bill 784 and the conditions of
EPA's final conditional approval of the DERC Program, September 6,
2006. See 71 FR 52703. Also at this time, the TCEQ adopted revisions to
the DERC Program at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Sections 101.372, 101.373,
101.375, 101.376, and 101.378 to address the mandates of Texas SB 784
and the conditions of EPA's final conditional approval of the DERC
Program, September 6, 2006. All of these revisions were submitted to
EPA on October 24, 2006, as part of rule project number 2005-054-101-
PR.
     On April 30, 2010, EPA fully approved the amendments to
the ERC and DERC Programs at 30 TAC Chapter 101, Sections 101.302,
101.305, 101.306, 101.372, 101.373, 101.375, 101.376, and 101.378. See
75 FR 27644 and 75 FR 27647, May 18, 2010.

III. What is the Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances Program?

Why did Texas develop the EBTA Program?

    The TCEQ created the EBTA Program to implement the requirements of
Texas SB 7, from the 76th Legislature, 1999, which deregulated the
electric utility industry. Under SB 7, TCEQ was required to develop a
permitting system and a mass cap and trade system to distribute
allowances for use by electric generating facilities. The EBTA program
is designed to achieve a 50 percent reduction in NOX
emissions and a 25 percent reduction in SO2 emissions,

both based on 1997 heat input data, from participating sources. The
permitting system required under SB 7 and established at 30 TAC Chapter
116, Subchapter I, is being evaluated in a separate rulemaking action
(See 75 FR 64235, October 19, 2010 at docket EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0031).

How does the EBTA Program work?

    The EBTA Program is similar to the source specific emissions cap as
described in EPA's Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Guidance,
``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' (EPA-452/R-
01-001, January 2001) (EIP Guidance). A source specific emissions cap
(SSEC) allows a limited group of sources that are subject to a rate-
based emission limit to meet that requirement by accepting a mass-based
emission limit, or cap, rather than complying directly with a rate-
based limit. Some attributes that characterize a successful SSEC
include a well-defined group of sources, little potential for emissions
to shift from included sources to excluded sources, and a relatively
low level of uncertainty associated with the program. In the EBTA
Program, the participating sources are limited to grandfathered and
electing electric generating facilities (EGFs). An electing EGF is a
facility permitted under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter B that elects
to comply with the permitting program established in Texas SB 7 at 30
TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter I.
    The EBTA divides Texas into three regions--East Texas, West Texas,
and El Paso. The East Texas Region includes all counties traversed by
or east of Interstate Highway 35 north of San Antonio or traversed by
or east of Highway 37 south of San Antonio, also including Bexar,
Bosque, Coryell, Hood, Parker, Somervell, and Wise Counties. The West
Texas Region includes all counties not contained in the East Texas or
El Paso Regions. The El Paso Region is defined at 30 TAC section
101.330(13) as all of El Paso County, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and
Sunland Park, New Mexico. Note that on October 24, 2006, TCEQ requested
no Federal action on the portions of the EBTA that pertain to the El
Paso region.
    To achieve the reductions of 50 percent NOX emissions
and 25 percent SO2 emissions, the TCEQ established emission
caps for each region. The caps consist of allowances allocated by the
TCEQ to each facility in the EBTA initially by January 1, 2000, for
grandfathered EGFs and by January 1, 2001, for electing EGFs. Beginning
in 2004, the TCEQ will allocate the allowances to all facilities in the
EBTA by May 1 of each year. The TCEQ will deposit the same amount of
allowances into each grandfathered or electing EGF's compliance account
at the beginning of each control period, with the exception that the
allocation for electing EGFs may be adjusted to reflect new state or
Federal requirements. An allowance is the authorization to emit one ton
of NOX or SO2 during a control period and does
not constitute a security or property right. All allowances will be
allocated, transferred, or used as whole allowances. The control period
for the EBTA is the 12-month period beginning May 1 of each year and
ending April 30 of the following year, with the initial control period
beginning May 1, 2003.
    A facility can choose to operate at, above, or below its allowance
budget. A source operating below its allowance budget can bank or trade
its allowances for use in subsequent control periods. A source
operating above its allowance budget must purchase excess allowances
from another source to demonstrate compliance with the cap. Beginning
June 1, 2004, and no later than June 1 following the end of every
control period, each facility must hold a quantity of allowances in its
compliance account that is equal to or greater than the total emissions
of air contaminant emitted during the control period just ending. If a
facility's actual emissions of air contaminant during a control period
exceed the amount of allowances held in the compliance account on June
1, allowances for the next control period will be reduced by an amount
equal to the emissions exceeding the allowances in the compliance
account. This deduction does not preclude any additional enforcement
action by the TCEQ.
    Facilities subject to the EBTA must submit a report to the TCEQ by
June 30 of each year following the completed control period. This
report must include the amount of emissions of each allocated air
contaminant and a summary of all final trades for the preceding control
period. Additionally, facilities subject to the EBTA will quantify and
report emissions using the monitoring and reporting requirements of 30
TAC 116.914 (See 75 FR 64235, October 19, 2010 at docket EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0031).
    A grandfathered or electing EGF may use emission reductions
achieved from Mexico in lieu of allowances for compliance with the
EBTA. The emission reductions may be criteria pollutants or precursors
of criteria pollutants, with the exception of lead emissions. The
reductions may be used in lieu of the same pollutant requirement (i.e.,
NOX reductions from Mexico are substituted for
NOX requirements in Texas). Or, the reductions of criteria
pollutants or their precursors may be substituted for emission
reduction requirements for other criteria pollutants (i.e., reductions
in CO emissions could be substituted for NOX or
SO2 emission requirements). In the event the Mexican
reduction is being substituted for a criteria pollutant requirement (CO
for NOX or SO2), the substitution must result in
greater health benefits and must be of equal or greater benefit to the
overall air quality of the area; or the substitution occurs between
criteria pollutants for which the area has been designated
nonattainment. Generally, the use of reductions from outside the United
States must be approved by the TCEQ executive director and the EPA, and
the user of the emission reduction must:
    1. Demonstrate to the TCEQ executive director and to the EPA that
the reduction is real, permanent, enforceable, quantifiable and surplus
to any applicable Mexican, federal, state, or local law;
    2. Demonstrate that the use of the reduction does not cause
localized health impacts, as determined by the TCEQ executive director
and EPA;
    3. Submit all supporting information for calculations and modeling,
and any additional information requested by the TCEQ executive director
and EPA; and
    4. Be located within 100 kilometers of the Texas-Mexico border.
    Sources subject to the EBTA submit an annual compliance report to
the TCEQ by June 30 of each year. This report details the amount of
emissions of each allocated air contaminant and a summary of all final
trades for the preceding control period. Through review of these
reports, the TCEQ is able to determine which facilities are in
compliance with the program.
    The TCEQ executive director will also develop a report no later
than September 30th following each control period that includes the
number of allowances allocated to each compliance account; the total
number of allowances allocated under the EBTA program; the number of
actual NOX and SO2 allowances subtracted from
each compliance account based on the actual NOX and
SO2 emissions from the site; and a summary of all trades
completed under the EBTA program.
    Additionally, the TCEQ executive director will audit the program no
later than three years after the effective date of the EBTA program,
and every three years thereafter. The audit will evaluate the impact of
the program on the state's ozone attainment demonstrations, the

availability and cost of allowances, compliance by the participants,
and any other elements the executive director deems necessary. If any
problems are identified, the executive director will recommend
remedies, including the discontinuation of trading in whole or part.
This audit will be submitted to the EPA and made available for public
inspection within six months after the audit begins.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the Emissions Banking and Trading of
Allowances Program?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable and must not relax
existing requirements. See Clean Air Act sections 110(a), 110(l), and
193. EPA's review of the January 3, 2000; September 11, 2000; July 15,
2002; and October 24, 2006 SIP revisions finds that all 4 SIP
submittals are consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR part 51 and
are considered complete SIP submittals in accordance with 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V. This detailed analysis is available in the TSD for this
rulemaking. Additionally, we reviewed the EBTA program with respect to
EPA's EIP Guidance ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs'' (EPA-452/R-01-001, January 2001) (EIP Guidance). Our
analysis, as detailed in the TSD accompanying this rulemaking, finds
that the EBTA program is consistent with the criteria for discretionary
source specific emissions cap programs. The EBTA program will provide
compliance flexibility to participating EGFs and achieve the
programmatic emission reduction goals of Texas SB 7. Further, EPA finds
that the EBTA program is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA and
will not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of the
NAAQS or any other applicable requirements of the Act.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of four
revisions to the Texas SIP submitted on January 3, 2000; September 11,
2000; July 15, 2002; and October 24, 2006. Specifically, EPA is
approving 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2, Sections
101.330-101.336, submitted on January 3, 2000; the revisions to 30 TAC
section 101.333 submitted on September 11, 2000; the adoption of new 30
TAC section 101.338 submitted on July 15, 2002; and the revisions to 30
TAC section 101.338 and the adoption of new 30 TAC section 101.339
submitted on October 24, 2006.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 18, 2011. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The table in Sec.  52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA-Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by adding a new centered heading titled
``Division 2--Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances'' immediately
after the entry

for Section 101.311 under Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules,
Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading, followed by new entries
for sections 101.330, 101.331, 101.332, 101.333, 101.334, 101.335,
101.336, 101.338 and 101.339.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                        EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State approval/
          State citation                Title/subject      submittal date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Subchapter H--Emissions Banking and Trading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 101.311...................  Program Audits and           11/10/04  9/6/06, 71 FR 52698...................
                                     Reports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Division 2--Emissions Banking and Trading of Allowances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.330...................  Definitions..........      12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                                                            number where document begins].
Section 101.331...................  Applicability........      12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                                                            number where document begins].
Section 101.332...................  General Provisions...      12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                                                            number where document begins].
Section 101.333...................  Allocation of              08/09/2000  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                     Allowances.                            number where document begins].
Section 101.334...................  Allowance Deductions.      12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                                                            number where document begins].
Section 101.335...................  Allowance Banking and      12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                     Trading.                               number where document begins].
Section 101.336...................  Emission Monitoring,       12/16/1999  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                     Compliance                             number where document begins].
                                     Demonstration, and
                                     Reporting.
Section 101.338...................  Emission Reductions        10/04/2006  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                     Achieved Outside the                   number where document begins].
                                     United States.
Section 101.339...................  Program Audits and         10/04/2006  November 16, 2010 [Insert FR page
                                     Reports.                               number where document begins].

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

[FR Doc. 2010-28659 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 44376]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2955-011]

City of Watervliet; Notice of Denial of Water Quality
Certification

    On February 28, 2020, the City of Watervliet (the City) filed an
application for a license for the Normanskill Hydroelectric Project
(project) in the above captioned docket. The City filed with the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC) a
request for water quality certification for the project under section
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act on July 12, 2021. On July 7, 2022, the
New York DEC denied certification for the project. Pursuant to 40 CFR
121.8, we are providing notice that New York DEC's denial satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 121.7(e).

    Dated: July 20, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16000 Filed 7-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                            RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

Introduction 	 	A Notice of Intent to Delete for the Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2017, Federal Register Number: 82 FR 56939-56940.  The publication of this notice was intended to inform the public that EPA planned to delete the Site from the National Priorities List, and provide a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion.  The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was January 2, 2018.  Six (6) written comments were received.  These comments are available in the Information Repositories.  All public comments were considered in EPA's final decision to delete the Site from the NPL.

Responsiveness Summary

	The Responsiveness Summary has been prepared to provide responses to comments submitted to EPA during the 30-day public comment period regarding the Notice of Intent to Delete (Federal Register Number: 82 FR 56939-56940) of the Hatheway and Patterson Superfund Site.  The original comments are summarized below and available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND -2002-0001, with the support materials under document type "Public Submissions", and at the information repositories at the following addresses: U.S. EPA Region 1, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109; and the Mansfield Public Library, 255 Hope Street, Mansfield, MA 02048.

Summary of Comment from an Anonymous resident of Virginia and Public Health student:       This comment was posted on regulations.gov on December 5, 2017 as an attached file.  The commenter expressed: (i) concern about the capping mechanism for the in-place pollutants and whether it is sufficiently durable, especially to extreme weather events; and (ii) questioned whether there are established mechanisms to ensure the safety of the Mansfield community's water supply from toxins and whether the Hatheway and Patterson Site would continue to receive additional support from EPA.  The commenter also requested the community be informed of any plan for any emergent scenarios in which the threat of contamination could affect the water supply and that EPA continue to aggressively reach out to the public to keep them up to date about the results of monitoring on the site.        Response:       The capping mechanisms used to cover the pollutants left in-place consist of several protective and impervious layers in addition to the bituminous asphalt cover and was constructed according to plans and specifications approved by EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) to provide long term protection during adverse weather events typical of Massachusetts.  Below the 2-inch asphalt cover, the cap includes approximately 4-inches of bituminous binder and 6-inches of subbase over a geotextile impermeable membrane.  Collectively, these layers minimize infiltration of rain and melted snow and also provide protection from freeze/thaw conditions.  Caps with similar specifications have been constructed at other sites and have been demonstrated to provide effective, long term protection.                The integrity and effectiveness of the cap is periodically evaluated by MassDEP during routine inspections and through groundwater monitoring conducted according to the approved Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the Hatheway and Patterson Superfund Site, dated August 2017.  Section 3.4 through 3.6 of the O&M Plan provides the monitoring protocols for the inspections and subsequent actions that may be required.  The O&M Plan is available in the Administrative Record for this proposed deletion (https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/605873).                Institutional controls are also in place to protect the integrity of the cap by limiting activities that may occur in this area, as required by the 2005 Record of Decision and the 2011 Explanation of Significant Differences.  The institutional controls also prevent exposure to contaminated soil and restrict access and use of the groundwater in the area. A copy of the institutional control used for the Foxborough property, which is in the form of Notice of Activity and Uses Limitations (NAULs), is available in the Administrative record for this proposed deletion (https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/586608.pdf).              Although groundwater use is restricted on the Hatheway and Patterson Site, this does not impact the Town of Mansfield's water supply.  The Town's water supply does not draw water from the groundwater aquifer below the Site, which is considered non-potable.  Furthermore, the water supply is monitored by the Town and evaluated by MassDEP on a routine basis in accordance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.                Finally, EPA will also conduct periodic reviews of the site at a minimum of every five years.  During these reviews, EPA will inspect the site and will review all monitoring data to insure the remedy continues to function as designed and constructed, and remains protective of public health and the environment.  EPA will continue to keep the community informed of the results of groundwater and other sampling data collected from the Site.  This information is typically reported as part of the Five-Year Review Report.   A press release or other public notice is made when the Five-Year Review is initiated and when it is complete.

Summary of Comment from Anonymous party:       This comment was posted on regulations.gov on December 12, 2017.  The commenter indicated that the Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site should not be removed from the NPL because in their opinion, EPA has not completed everything required under CERCLA, including operation, maintenance, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews.          Response:       EPA maintains the National Priorities List (NPL) as a priority list of sites that present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.  As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.  EPA has made a determination that all response actions have been completed for the Site and it is appropriate for deletion.               CERCLA Section 9601(25) and Section 300.5 of the NCP both define response as removal or remedial action, including enforcement related activities.  Response actions may include a combination of engineering and/or institutional controls selected to address risks posed at the site.  If waste is left in place, O&M activities may continue after all response actions have been completed but is not considered a response action.  Monitoring ensures the protectiveness of the response action once the clean-up levels have been achieved.  EPA Region 1 has documented that all response actions have been completed in a Remedial Action Completion report (https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/495545).  The Final Close Out Report for the Site (https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/605867) also summarizes recent groundwater and surface water monitoring data and an analysis that demonstrates that cleanup levels have been achieved.  As discussed in EPA guidance, including Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites, OSWER 9320.2  - 22 and Comprehensive Five-Year Review `Guidance OSWER 9355.7-03B-P; Operation and Maintenance, Monitoring and Five-Year Reviews are ongoing activities for Superfund sites with containment remedies conducted after site deletion from the NPL.  These continue after a response action is complete.              The objectives of the selected remedy, to address current and future risks due to direct contact and incidental ingestion of soil and risks to future users of groundwater, have been met.  The remedy was completed from 2009 through 2010 due to funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  A total of 34,000 tons of soil was removed from the Northern Mansfield Property and the Foxborough Property and 9,500 tons of soil was removed from the eastern portion of the Southern Mansfield Property for off-site disposal to a RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste landfill.  Although, approximately 5,000 tons of soil exceeding arsenic cleanup levels were consolidated in the "Capped Consolidation Area" on the Foxborough Property under a multi-layer low-permeability barrier, there are institutional controls in the form of Notice of Activity and Uses Limitations (NAULs) in-place, to prevent uncontrolled access to the Site.  On-going monitoring conducted by the MassDEP per the O & M Plan provide further assurances that the Site no longer poses any threats to human health or the environment.  MassDEP will continue routine monitoring of the Site, which includes semi-annual monitoring of groundwater and sampling of sediment and surface water at least once every five years.  EPA will also conduct Five-Year Reviews to ensure that the remedial actions remain protective.        Summary of Comment from Anonymous party:       This comment was posted on regulations.gov on January 2, 2018.  The commenter indicated that the deletion of the Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site from the NPL should be delayed because in the commenters opinion, EPA has not made definitive data and information readily available to the public to determine whether or not the proper tests were fully administered and whether the Site should be deleted from the NPL.         Response:       EPA has made a determination that sufficient data has been collected to demonstrate that site risks are controlled and that further response actions are not needed.  The data that supports this determination is located in a number of documents that are posted to the docket and at the public information repositories.  For example, the Final Close Out Report for the Site, available on the Hatheway & Patterson website (https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/01/605867) and in the docket for deletion of the Site, summarizes recent groundwater and surface water monitoring data and an analysis that demonstrates that cleanup levels have been achieved.  Previous sampling data is also provided in the first Five-Year Review for the Site completed in 2014; this report can also be found in the deletion docket and on the Hatheway & Patterson website at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/567899.pdf.  All samples collected from the Site follow EPA and/or state quality controls.               Remedial Action (RA) plans for all phases of construction included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated October 2009 and QAPP Revision 1, dated March 2010.  The QAPP incorporated all EPA and State quality assurance and quality control procedures and protocols (where necessary).  All procedures and protocols were followed for soil, sediment, water and air sampling during the RA.  EPA approved analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples during all RA activities.  EPA has determined that the analytical results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and are consistent with the ROD and the RD/RA plans and specifications.                    In general, based on EPA's evaluation of the data, the remedy protects human health and the environment because remediation of the soil (soil removal and on-site consolidation) has been completed to cleanup levels that are considered protective for the anticipated future use of the property, and there is no current use of on-site groundwater which is classified as non-potable.  Institutional controls are in place.  Operation and maintenance activities are on-going and will ensure that the consolidation area and associated components of the remedy (e.g., groundwater monitoring wells) remain in good condition.  In addition, monitoring of groundwater will continue to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.              Monitoring data collected as part of the operation and maintenance plan for the Site will continue to be collected for the foreseeable future and the data will be continuously evaluated.  The data will be reported as part of the next Five-Year Review scheduled for 2019.  During the Five-Year Review, EPA will evaluate whether the remedy remains protective.  If additional actions are warranted, EPA will implement those actions.  EPA has determined that the deletion need not be delayed.

Summary of Comments from Anonymous parties:       Two comments were submitted on regulations.gov on December 5, 2017.  The commenters offer opinions regarding interest in utilizing America's oil and natural gas resources to provide alternative sources of energy internationally as a means of improving lives of American families.          Response:       The commenters did not articulate a position on this proposed deletion.  Therefore, no response is warranted as a result of these comments.

Summary of Comment from an Anonymous party:       This comment was posted on regulations.gov on December 6, 2017.  The commenter offers an opinion regarding Renewable Electricity Futures and EPA's New Source Review (NSR) regulations.          Response:       The commenter did not articulate a position on this proposed deletion.  Therefore, no response is warranted as a result of this comment.