[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11946-11952]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05398]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9975-47--Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve South Dakota's regional haze progress report, submitted as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). South Dakota's
SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the
EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress goals established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional
haze SIP. South Dakota's progress report explains that South Dakota has
implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that visibility in mandatory
federal Class I areas affected by emissions from South Dakota sources
is improving. The EPA is proposing approval of South Dakota's
determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0672 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory federal Class I area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze SIP. The first progress report must take the form of a
SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional
haze SIP. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota submitted the State's first
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South
Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of
the first implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted as a revision to its
SIP a progress report which detailed the progress made in the first
planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS)
outlined in the 2011 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility
improvement measured at Class I areas affected by emissions from South
Dakota sources, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing regional haze SIP. The State provided public notice for
comment on the Progress Report from December 22, 2015, to January 20,
2015, and received no comment. The EPA is proposing to approve South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP submittal.

II. EPA's Evaluation of South Dakota's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section includes the EPA's analysis of South Dakota's Progress
Report and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed
approval. The State's Progress Report evaluates the most recent
visibility results against the 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Goals (URP
Goals), instead of the 2018 RPGs specified in the regional haze
regulations. South Dakota's Progress Report explains they used the URP
Goals because ``South Dakota's Class I areas have exceeded the
reasonable progress goals that were established'' and ``[w]ith
emissions reductions that are expected from the addition of BART
controls at Big Stone and other facilities throughout the region, DENR
expects that the improvements will continue and South Dakota's Class I
areas will meet the 2018 uniform rate of progress goals.'' \3\ Since
the regional haze regulations require an evaluation of visibility
progress against the 2018 RPGs, our evaluation of South Dakota's SIP
focuses on the RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Control Measures
    In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the emissions
reduction measures that were relied upon by South Dakota in its
regional haze plan for ensuring reasonable progress at the two Class I
areas within the State: Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The
State's regional haze SIP established reasonable progress goals for
2018.\4\ The emission reduction measures include applicable federal
programs (e.g., mobile source rules), various existing South Dakota air
quality rules, and a plan to ``investigate the impacts of a smoke
management plan'' to determine what level of fires and what best
management practices should be included in the plan, with the results
adopted into the SIP as part of the LTS.\5\ South Dakota also reviewed
the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements
for the sole BART-subject source in the state: The Big Stone I coal-
fired power plant, owned by Montana-Dakota Utilities Company,
NorthWestern Energy, and Otter Tail Power Company, located near Big
Stone City, South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 52.2170(c)(1). 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012)
(final RH SIP approving South Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, Amendment,
Section 7.2, Table 7-1, p. 106). 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8,
2011) (proposed RH SIP approval, Tables 20 and 21).
    \5\ South Dakota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan: 5-
Year Progress Report, p. 6 (``South Dakota Progress Report''). South
Dakota SIP. pp. 121-122 (January 18, 2011 submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Progress Report presents the extensive information collected
and analyzed to investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan.\6\
In reviewing ``the annual values for the aerosol species at the Wind
Cave National Park'' the State ``was concerned about the extremely high
value for particulate organic mass and elemental carbon in 2010.'' The
report further explained that ``[d]ue to the fact that particulate
organic mass and elemental carbons are typically associated with fire,
the DENR researched a fire database'' and found that ``[i]n 2010, the
National Park Service conducted a 5,500 acre prescribed fire at the
Wind Cave National Park just a mile from the monitoring site.'' The
Progress Report explains that this fire created two of the 20% most
impaired days at the park and the main contributor was particulate
organic mass.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-12, 19-21, 24-27, 29-33,
37, 40-42.
    \7\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 11. The results of this
fire are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In analyzing changes in nitrogen oxide emissions from 2002 through
2011, the Report explained that ``[t]he only real increase in nitrogen
oxide emissions was from anthropogenic fires with an increase of 970
tons per year.'' \8\ Notably, during the same timeframe, the Report
noted that ``sulfur dioxide emissions in South Dakota decreased by just
less than 8,500 tons per year'' and that ``[t]he largest decreases were
seen in anthropogenic off-road mobile and point sources with a small
decrease in natural fire.'' \9\ The State also looked at primary
organic aerosol emissions that ``are produced by both anthropogenic and
natural sources but are most commonly associated with fire,'' and found
that for 2002-2011 timeframe ``[t]he largest decrease was seen in
natural fires at just fewer than 4,000 tons.'' \10\ The Report included
information on elemental carbon emissions, noted that natural sources
of those emissions include fire. The State explained that while there
was a small decrease in natural fire over the 2002-2011 timeframe, the
data showed minor

increases in anthropogenic fire.\11\ During the same timeframe fine
soil emissions decreased, which included decreases in natural fire.\12\
South Dakota also included information in the Report on coarse soil
emissions over the 2002-2011 timeframe, and while there was an increase
of over 57,000 tons during that timeframe, anthropogenic fire
contributed to only 223 tons of those emissions.\13\ Additionally,
while the Report shows ammonia emissions increased over the 2002-2011
timeframe by ``just over 9,500 tons,'' emissions from natural fire
decreased.\14\ Overall nitrogen dioxide emissions and natural biogenic
emissions decreased, however, there were small increases from
anthropogenic fires.\15\ The Report shows both volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions decreasing
over the 2002-2011 timeframe, despite increases in anthropogenic fire
at 9,551 tons and 38,155 tons respectively.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 17-18.
    \9\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 17.
    \10\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 19.
    \11\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 20-21.
    \12\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 22.
    \13\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 23.
    \14\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
    \15\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
    \16\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 25-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data which shows
the impacts of prescribed fires conducted by the National Park Service
(NPS) at Wind Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.\17\ The Report
includes two examples of the IMPROVE data that show that the NPS
prescribed fires on both September 3, 2009, and October 20, 2010,
contributed high levels of both particulate organic mass and elemental
carbon on both days.\18\ Additionally, the Report provides monitoring
data which shows that particulate organic matter is ``the second
largest contributor [sic?] to visibility extinction at the Badlands
National Park during the 20% most impaired days'' and that particulate
matter (PM) is typically the product of fire.\19\ South Dakota also
provides analysis which shows particulate mass levels on the 20 percent
most impaired days without the impacts from the NPS prescribed fires.
This analysis shows that ``if Wind Cave National Park would not have
experienced the prescribed fires by Federal Land Managers, the Wind
Cave's National Park's particulate organic mass levels would be below
the Uniform Glide Slope similar to the Badlands National Park Uniform
Glide Slope for particulate organic mass''.\20\ Additionally, the State
explained that while it was preparing the Progress Report, more
prescribed fire events occurred in 2015 that will likely show impacts
to the Class I areas.\21\ Finally, in its Progress Report, South Dakota
explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South Dakota have
improved coordination and communications over the past few years and
plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of prescribed
fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
    \18\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p. 31 and Table
3-29, p. 33.
    \19\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10, pp. 35, 37.
    \20\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40 and Figures 3-22, 3-23,
p. 41.
    \21\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 33.
    \22\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B-
2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR
also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track
prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides an update on the
status of the BART determination at the Big Stone I power plant and the
subsequent action taken given the determination. The BART
determination, which was finalized for Big Stone I on December 7, 2010,
was approved by the EPA,\23\ and includes a selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) system and separated over-fire-air (SOFA) installed in
the power plant's main boiler for nitrogen oxide (NOX)
control, a dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) control, and a fabric filter system for PM
control.\24\ In the Progress Report, the State describes the
installation and operation of the required BART controls by the end of
2015, as required by the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan.\25\
The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution
controls the State describes in its Progress Report, and has confirmed
that the emissions limits in the SIP were met by the required date of
June 28, 2017.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 76 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
    \24\ 37 SDR 111 (December 7, 2010).
    \25\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
    \26\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017, information available
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, BART controls at Big Stone I have resulted in
a substantial decrease in both SO2 and NOX
emissions (a 94 and 91 percent decrease in emissions from 2013 2014
levels, respectively).\27\ These are larger reductions in emissions
than the State estimated in the Progress Report and represent a clear
downward trend since BART controls were installed and operational in
late 2015.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.
    \28\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 7.
    \29\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.

  Table 1--Big Stone I Power Plant Emissions Pre and Post BART Control
                       [Actual, average tons] \29\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           NOX (actual,    SO2 (actual,
              Calendar year                average tons)   average tons)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2004 (Baseline)....................       13,090.59       16,270.48
2013, 2014 (pre BART)...................       10,860.11       14,592.54
% Emissions Reduction (baseline vs. pre              17%             10%
 BART ).................................
2016, 2017 (post BART)..................          973.18          836.33
% Emissions Reduction (pre BART vs. post             91%             94%
 BART)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Report
provides documentation of the implementation of measures within South
Dakota, including BART at the sole BART-subject source in the State and
the State's efforts to develop the smoke management plan.
2. Emissions Reductions
    As discussed above, South Dakota focused its assessment in its
regional haze plan and Progress Report on emissions reductions from
pollution control strategies that were

implemented at the Big Stone I power plant by the end of calendar year
2015. The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution
controls the State describes in their Progress Report. In its Progress
Report, South Dakota provides a comparison of Big Stone I's actual
SO2 and NOX emission rates to BART limits for the
pollutants 2010-2014.\30\ Additionally, South Dakota provides statewide
SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course) emissions data
(among other pollutants) from Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
emissions inventories.\31\ The WRAP data shows that there were
decreases in emissions of SO2, NOX and PM (fine
and course) over the time period (i.e., 2002, 2008, 2011) of the three
emissions inventories listed (Plan02d, 2008 West Jump and 2011WAQDW).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1, p. 8.
    \31\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-2, p. 8. The WRAP's
inventories were developed using EPA's National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx).
The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by state, local, and
tribal air agencies (including South Dakota) for sources in their
jurisdiction and supplemented by data developed by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions
for pollutants SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course)
and presents sufficient information and discussion regarding emissions
trends during this period.
3. Visibility Conditions
    In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides information on
visibility conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The
Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these
annual values, with values for the most impaired, least impaired and/or
clearest days. The period for calculating current visibility conditions
is the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the
progress report for which data were available as of a date 6 months
preceding the required date of the progress report.
    South Dakota's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the two Class I areas within the State: Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks. South Dakota reported current visibility
conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009-2013 5-year time periods and
used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I areas.\32\ Table 2,
below, shows the visibility conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009-
2013 5-year time periods, the difference between these current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the 2018
RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).

                   Table 2--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas
                                                                       [Deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Difference                      Difference      Difference
          Class I area           Baseline (2000- Current (2007-   (baseline vs.   More current    (current vs.    (baseline vs.        SD 2018 RPG
                                      2004)           2011)         current)       (2009-2013)    more current)   more current)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands National Park.........            17.1            16.3            -0.8            15.7            -0.6            -1.4               \33\ 16.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands National Park.........             6.9             6.5            -0.4             5.8            -0.7            -1.1                \34\ 6.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave National Park........            15.8            14.9            -0.9            14.1            -0.8            -1.7               \35\ 15.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave National Park........             5.1             4.4            -0.7             3.9            -0.5            -1.2                \36\ 5.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2, both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks saw
an improvement in visibility between baseline and the 2007-2011 and
2009-2013 time periods.\37\ South Dakota also reported 20 percent worst
day and 20 percent best day visibility data for both Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks from 2005-2009 and 2008-2012 for each year in terms
of 5-year averages.\38\ This data shows an improvement in visibility at
both class 1 areas on the 20 percent

best days from 2005-2009 and on the 20 percent worst days from 2008-
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (``South Dakota's
reasonable progress goals for Badlands for 2018 for the 20% worst
days represent a 0.84 deciviews improvement over baseline. . . ''
Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) SD SIP pp. 105-106,
(September 19, 2011) (``DENR relied on the [WRAP's] results of the
CMAQ modeling in determining the reasonable progress achieved by
South Dakota surrounding states, and federal regulations in South
Dakota's Class I areas.'') South Dakota's SIP is included in the
docket for this action).
    \34\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
    \35\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (South Dakota's ``. .
. reasonable progress goals for Wind Cave for 2018 represent a 0.56
deciviews improvement over baseline.'' Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 24855
(April 26, 2012).
    \36\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
    \37\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p.
16.
    \38\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p.
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) regarding
assessment of visibility conditions because the State provided baseline
visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development, the difference between these current sets
of visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the
change in visibility impairment from 2009-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
    In its Progress Report, South Dakota presents data from a statewide
emissions inventory for 2011 (2011WAQDW) and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\39\ The pollutants
inventoried include SO2, NOX, Primary Organic
Aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), PM2.5 (fine),
PM10 (coarse), NH3, VOCs and carbon monoxide
(CO). The emissions inventories include the following source
classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile; area oil
and gas; fugitive and road dust; anthropogenic fire; natural fire;
biogenic and wind-blown dust from both anthropogenic and natural
sources. Table 3 presents the 2002 and 2011 statewide emission
inventories, and includes emissions from Big Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ WRAP Plan02d represents the State's baseline year (2002)
emissions inventory. This emissions inventory was developed for use
in the State's original Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 24845 (April
26, 2012). The 2011WAQDW emissions inventory is considered the most
current inventory for the purposes of this element and was derived
from the WRAP's 2011Western Air Quality Data Warehouse project for
South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, as the table shows, South Dakota's emissions that affect
visibility were reduced in all sectors for all pollutants, except for
POA and NH3. Compared to the 2002 emission inventory South
Dakota used to model haze (Plan02d), emissions in 2011 (2011WAQDW) were
reduced by 38 percent for SO2, 48 percent for
NOX, 4 percent for PM2.5 and 9 percent for
PM10, respectively. There were slight increases in both POA
and NH3 as can be seen in Table 3.40 41
Furthermore, the State provides actual SO2 and
NOX emissions from Big Stone I, which demonstrates that
emissions of both pollutants are trending lower per Table 1 above.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-
23, 3-24, 3-25, pp. 17-24.
    \41\ Many important changes in emissions inventory methodology
occurred between 2007 or 2008 and the most current emissions
inventory data presented by the State (2011WAQDW). One methodology
change was the reclassification of some off-road mobile sources in
the area source category, which may have resulted in the increase in
NH3 and POA in the above comparison rather than an
increase in actual emissions of these pollutants.
    \42\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1.

                           Table 3--Changes in South Dakota Total Emissions, Statewide
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2002 (Plan02d)
                     Pollutant (all sources)                        and RH SIP         2011         Difference
                                                                       \43\         (2011WAQDW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.............................................................          22,076          13,618          -8,458
NOX.............................................................         146,764          75,560         -71,204
PM2.5...........................................................          82,414          79,058          -3,356
PM10............................................................         615,345         557,508         -57,837
POA.............................................................           9,168           9,563             395
NH3.............................................................         120,406         129,972           9,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to find that South Dakota adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of Progress Report development with the
baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 76 FR 76666, 76667, 76668 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
    South Dakota also provided an assessment of any significant changes
in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have
occurred, which included data collected during the years when there
were prescribed fires that may have impeded progress towards reducing
emissions or improving visibility.\44\ South Dakota documented that
ammonium sulfate continues to be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze for the Badlands National Park Class I area in the
State.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ South Dakota Progress Report, Figures 3-14, 3-15, p. 32,
Table 3-29, p. 33.
    \45\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Dakota also determined that particulate matter contributes
the most to visibility impairment at Wind Cave National Park.\46\
Additionally, the State presented data that shows that the prescribed
fires at Wind Cave National Park conducted by the National Park
Service, contributed to high levels of PM at the Class I area and,
subsequently, the 20 percent most impaired days at the park in 2009 and
2010, respectively.\47\ Even with the impacts from prescribed fires,
the State's most current visibility assessments shows they are on track
to meet the 2018 RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10 and p. 29.
    \47\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-28 and 3-29, pp. 31,
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessment of South Dakota's contribution to haze in Class I areas
outside of the State has shown that South Dakota emissions have, or may
reasonably be expected to have, impacts on Class I areas in Minnesota,
Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.\48\ In its Progress Report, the
State references the initial Regional Haze SIP and BART analysis for
Big Stone I, which indicates Big Stone power plant is the only facility
that impacts Class I areas outside of South Dakota.\49\ The BART
controls installed and operational in late 2015 at Big Stone decreased
NOX and SO2 emissions by 91 and 94 percent,
respectively, which is a significant downward trend in these pollutants
post BART.\50\ Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the
State's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in
emissions of

visibility-impairing pollutants that have limited or impeded progress
in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas
impacted by the State's sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 76 FR 76651 (December 8, 2011).
    \49\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-1.
    \50\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to
agree with South Dakota's conclusion that there have been no
significant changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
which have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and
improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
    In its Progress Report, South Dakota acknowledges the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to discuss whether the current implementation
plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or
other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State,
to meet all established reasonable progress goals.\51\ As seen in Table
2, South Dakota's visibility assessment using the most current
information available (2009-2013) shows that it is meeting the 2018
RPGs at both national parks, Badlands National Park 15.70 dv (current)
versus 16.30 dv (2018 RPG) and Wind Cave National Park 14.10 dv
(current) versus 15.28 dv (2018 RPG). The State also includes
information regarding the 2018 URP Goals, but since those goals are not
part of the 5-year assessment regulations, we do not include that
information. The State concludes that no substantive revisions to the
existing regional haze plan are necessary as the State is exceeding the
2018 RPGs for Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Badlands National Park, the State anticipates that the 2018
visibility data will be lower than what was reported for the most
recent data available because BART was fully implemented at Big Stone I
by 2015. The reductions from Big Stone are significant and occurred
after the most recent data included in the State's SIP. Second, the
State explains that BART controls will be completed elsewhere
throughout the region after 2013 and by 2018.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the State's
conclusion that visibility at Badlands National Park is anticipated to
meet or exceed the RPG for 2018.
    For Wind Cave National Park, the State's visibility assessment in
Table 2 shows that the State is currently meeting the 2018 RPG.
Additionally, the emissions reductions from Big Stone I are significant
and occurred after the most recent visibility data available. The State
expects additional improvements in visibility from these reductions.
The State's report concludes, that the current implementation plan is
meeting the ``reasonable progress goals.'' \53\ Although the State's
visibility assessment demonstrates that it is meeting the 2018 RPGs,
the State explains that emission reductions from Big Stone I are
significant and occurred after the most recent visibility data was
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's SIP explains that particulate organic mass level is the
number one contributor to visibility degradation at Wind Cave National
Park,\54\ and the level varies depending on the year and the number of
the wildfires.\55\ The SIP explains that the despite the spikes in
particulate organic mass at Wind Cave, decreases in ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate and other aerosol species have led to decreased
deciview levels at the Wind Cave National Park. The DENR anticipates
this trend will continue and improve as the DENR continues to work with
the National Park Service on prescribed fires in the Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40.
    \55\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 38.
    \56\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment,
including the State's efforts to investigate the impacts of a smoke
management plan, and agrees with the State's determination that its
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its Class I
areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
    For progress reports for the first implementation period, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) (7) require ``a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary.'' In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the
existing monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, which consists of DENR relying
on the national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection
goals.\57\ There are currently IMPROVE sites located in both Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks.\58\ Therefore, the State concludes that
no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary. The State will continue its reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network. The IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in South
Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
    \58\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I areas in South
Dakota. South Dakota states that in the future the data produced by the
IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing the regional haze
progress reports and SIP revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from
the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and be kept up-to-
date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System website has been
maintained by WRAP and the other Regional Planning Organizations to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
    In addition, the State operates additional non-IMPROVE monitors in
both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks which help South Dakota
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the State, and
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near its
Class I areas.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) regarding monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy,
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.

B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine
the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet existing
goals. South Dakota's Progress Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in
South Dakota beyond those already in place and those to be implemented
by 2018 according to South Dakota's regional haze plan.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposes to conclude that South Dakota has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at both Class
I areas in the State, Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, indicate
that the relevant RPGs

will be met via emission reductions already in place.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's January 27, 2016,
Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

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 Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 13, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-05398 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34902-34907]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12723]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0212; FRL-9943-73]

Aldicarb, Alternaria destruens, Ampelomyces quisqualis, Azinphos-
methyl, Etridiazole, Fenarimol, et al.; Tolerance and Tolerance
Exemption Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances in follow-up to canceled
product registrations or uses for acephate, aldicarb, azinphos-methyl,
etridiazole, fenarimol, imazamethabenz-methyl, tepraloxydim, thiazopyr,
and tralkoxydim, and is revoking tolerance exemptions for certain
pesticide active ingredients. However, EPA will not revoke the
thiacloprid tolerances at this time that had been previously proposed
for revocation. Also, EPA is making minor revisions to the section
heading and introductory text for Pythium oligandrum DV 74. In
addition, in accordance with current Agency practice, EPA is making
revisions to the tolerance expression for imazamethabenz-methyl, and
removing expired tolerances and tolerance exemptions for certain
pesticide active ingredients.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 28, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 1, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0212, 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: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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(g), 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-2015-0212 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
1, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing
requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0212, 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

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    In the Federal Register of July 22, 2015 (80 FR 43373) (FRL-9929-
12), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke certain tolerances for
acephate, aldicarb, azinphos-methyl, etridiazole, fenarimol,
imazamethabenz-methyl, tepraloxydim, thiacloprid, thiazopyr, and
tralkoxydim, and tolerance exemptions for certain pesticide active
ingredients, in follow-up to canceled product registrations or uses.
Also, EPA proposed to make minor revisions to the section heading and
introductory text for Pythium oligandrum DV 74. In addition, in
accordance with current Agency practice, EPA proposed to make minor
revisions to the tolerance expression for imazamethabenz-methyl, and
remove expired tolerances and tolerance exemptions for certain
pesticide active ingredients. The proposal provided a 60-day comment
period.
    Since the proposed rule of July 22, 2015, amendments for the last
two acephate labels with succulent bean use (revising succulent bean to
a non-food use) were approved by EPA, as anticipated and discussed in
the

proposed rule. Therefore, EPA is revoking the acephate tolerances in 40
CFR 180.108(a)(1) and (a)(3) on bean, succulent.
    In this final rule EPA is revoking certain tolerances and/or
tolerance exemptions because either they are no longer needed or are
associated with food uses that are no longer registered under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the
United States. Those instances where registrations were canceled were
because the registrant failed to pay the required maintenance fee and/
or the registrant voluntarily requested cancellation of one or more
registered uses of the pesticide active ingredient. The tolerances
revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of
the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or
commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is
EPA's general practice to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances
and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients
on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA,
unless any person comments on the proposal indicating a need for the
tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported
commodities or legally treated domestic commodities.
    EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances
that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods
may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following
conditions applies:
    1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order
requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or (e)
order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the
comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
    2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer
needed.
    3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the
tolerance meets the requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA).
    Among the comments received by EPA are the following:
    1. Aldicarb.--Comment by Ag Logic Chemical LLC (Ag Logic). The
commenter requested that the aldicarb tolerances on sorghum be retained
for possible future actions. Ag Logic stated that another registrant
requested the voluntary cancellation of its aldicarb products for use
on sorghum and now Ag Logic is the sole registrant for aldicarb. Also,
Ag Logic stated it is reevaluating all current and potential
agricultural uses for aldicarb and if it decides to apply for
registration on sorghum it would be extremely beneficial to both Ag
Logic and the Agency if the sorghum tolerances remained in place.
    Agency response. The use of aldicarb on sorghum was officially
canceled in 2009 (see details in the proposed rule of July 22, 2015)
under section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136(d)(f)(1), under which a
registrant of a pesticide product may request that the product
registration be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses.
Because EPA canceled the sorghum use in response to a registrant's
voluntary request, and no other aldicarb products include a use on
sorghum, there is currently no legal use of aldicarb on sorghum. EPA
will not retain the tolerance based on the possibility that someone may
apply for a new use on sorghum in the future. Tolerances are generally
maintained for current uses. In addition, no comment specific to the
need for retaining tolerances for aldicarb residues of concern on
sorghum for import purposes was received by the Agency during the 60-
day comment period. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerances for
aldicarb in 40 CFR 180.269(a) on sorghum, grain, bran; sorghum, grain,
grain; and sorghum, grain, stover.
    2. Thiacloprid.--Comments by Bayer CropScience (BCS), BCS in
Mexico, Power Farms Inc., the Ontario Apple Growers (OAG), and the
Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association (OFVGA). The
commenters requested that all the current tolerances for thiacloprid be
retained for import purposes with the exception of the OFVGA, which
asked that only the specific thiacloprid tolerances on pome fruit and
wet apple pomace be maintained for import purposes. Also, BCS stated
its intention to provide supporting data where necessary for all of the
current thiacloprid tolerances.
    Agency response. In comments to the proposed rule, persons
expressed a need for retention of the thiacloprid tolerances for import
purposes. Therefore, EPA will not revoke the thiacloprid tolerances in
40 CFR 180.594 at this time. However, because there are no longer any
active food-use registrations in the United States and no comments were
received by EPA which expressed a need for more time to exhaust
existing stocks for domestic use, EPA is not changing its previous
determination (as stated in the proposed rule of July 22, 2015) that
existing stocks in the United States will be exhausted by February 8,
2017. EPA is noting in 40 CFR 180.594 that the tolerances for
thiacloprid have no U.S. registrations as of August 6, 2014. Also,
retaining these tolerances may require submission of data to
demonstrate their safety. For example, domestic U.S. residue data may
not be representative of growing conditions and use patterns in other
countries. EPA published guidance on pesticide import tolerances and
residue data for imported food in the Federal Register notices of April
5, 2006 (71 FR 17099) (FRL-7772-1) and June 1, 2000 (65 FR 35069) (FRL-
6559-3).
    With the exception of aldicarb and thiacloprid, the Agency did not
receive any specific comments in the docket, during the 60-day comment
period, concerning proposed tolerance actions associated with pesticide
active ingredients, as described in the Federal Register of July 22,
2015. Therefore, with the exception of thiacloprid, EPA is finalizing
revocations and amendments in the proposed rule of July 22, 2015. For a
detailed discussion of the Agency's rationale for the finalized
tolerance actions, refer to the proposed rule of July 22, 2015.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is
revoking tolerances and tolerance exemptions as follow-up on canceled
uses of pesticides.

C. When do these actions become effective?

    As stated in the DATES section, this regulation is effective
November 28, 2016. EPA is delaying the effective date of these
finalized actions to allow a reasonable interval for producers in
exporting members of the World Trade Organization's Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements of a
final rule. With the exception of fenarimol, imazamethabenz-methyl, and
thiacloprid, EPA believes that existing stocks of the canceled or
amended pesticide products labeled for the uses associated with the
revoked tolerances have been completely exhausted and that treated
commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels
of trade. EPA is revoking certain tolerances for fenarimol,
imazamethabenz-methyl, and tepraloxydim with expiration/revocation
dates. EPA believes that these revocation dates allow users to exhaust
stocks and allow sufficient time

for passage of treated commodities through the channels of trade.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall
be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under
this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall
not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.

III. 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.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for etridiazole,
imazamethabenz-methyl, tepraloxydim, thiazopyr, and tralkoxydim.
    The Codex has established MRLs for acephate, in or on various
commodities, including beans, except broad bean and soya bean at 5
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). The beans, except broad bean and soya bean
MRL is different than the tolerance established for acephate on
succulent bean in the United States, which EPA is revoking in this
final rule.
    The Codex has established MRLs for aldicarb, in or on various
commodities, including sorghum at 0.1 mg/kg, which is covered by a
current U.S. tolerance at a higher level than the MRL, and sorghum
straw and fodder, dry at 0.5 mg/kg, which is the same as the U.S.
tolerance. The sorghum MRL is different than the tolerance established
for aldicarb in the United States. In this final rule EPA is revoking
the tolerances for aldicarb on sorghum, grain, bran; sorghum, grain,
grain; and sorghum, grain, stover.
    The Codex has established MRLs for azinphos-methyl in or on various
commodities, including almond hulls and blueberries at 5 mg/kg,
cherries, peach, and plums (including prunes) at 2 mg/kg, and walnuts
at 0.3 mg/kg. These MRLs are the same as the tolerances established for
azinphos-methyl in the United States. In this final rule EPA is
revoking the tolerances for azinphos-methyl on almond, hulls;
blueberry; cherry; peach; plum, prune; and walnut.
    The Codex has established MRLs for azinphos-methyl, in or on
various commodities, including almonds and apple at 0.05 mg/kg (which
are covered by current U.S. tolerances at a higher level than the
MRLs), and pear at 2 mg/kg. These MRLs are different than the
tolerances established for azinphos-methyl in the United States. In
this final rule EPA is revoking the tolerances for azinphos-methyl on
almond; apple; and pear.
    The Codex has established MRLs for fenarimol in or on various
commodities, including cattle, liver at 0.05 mg/kg, cherries at 1 mg/
kg, hops, dry at 5 mg/kg, and pecan at 0.02 mg/kg. These MRLs are the
same as the tolerances established for fenarimol in the United States.
In this final rule EPA is revoking the tolerances for fenarimol
residues in or on cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney; cherry,
sweet; cherry, tart; hop, dried cones; and pecan; each with an
expiration/revocation date.
    The Codex has established MRLs for fenarimol, in or on various
commodities, including cattle kidney and cattle meat at 0.02 mg/kg; and
grapes at 0.3 mg/kg. These MRLs are different than the tolerances
established for fenarimol in the United States. In this final rule EPA
is revoking the tolerances for fenarimol residues in or on cattle,
kidney; cattle, meat; and grape; each with an expiration/revocation
date.
    The Codex has established MRLs for thiacloprid in or on various
commodities, including cotton seed at 0.02 mg/kg, peppers, sweet at 1
mg/kg, and stone fruits at 0.5 mg/kg (for U.S. tolerances on cherry
subgroup and peach subgroup). These MRLs are the same as the tolerances
established for thiacloprid in the United States.
    The Codex has established MRLs for thiacloprid, in or on various
commodities, including milks at 0.05 mg/kg; pome fruits at 0.7 mg/kg,
and stone fruits at 0.5 mg/kg (for U.S. tolerance on plum subgroup).
These MRLs are different than the tolerances established for
thiacloprid in the United States because of differences in use patterns
and/or agricultural practices.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this type of action (e.g., a tolerance revocation for which
extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule 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). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or 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.). Nor does
it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed
whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published in
the Federal Register of December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1),
and was provided to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into
account this analysis and available information concerning the
pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA
determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an
import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect
a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a
negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding
simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency
document is available in the docket of the proposed rule.) Furthermore,
for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no
extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations
that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on 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,
entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that 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.'' This final
rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and
food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).
For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does
not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

V. 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 11, 2016.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, 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.

Sec.  180.108  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  180.108, remove the entries for ``Bean, succulent'' from
the tables in paragraphs (a)(1) and (3).

Sec. Sec.  180.121, 180.154, 180.232, 180.257, and 180.263  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec. Sec.  180.121, 180.154, 180.232, 180.257, and 180.263.

Sec.  180.269  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  180.269, remove the entries for ``Sorghum, grain, bran,''
``Sorghum, grain, grain,'' and ``Sorghum, grain, stover,'' from the
table in paragraph (a).

Sec. Sec.  180.311 and 180.315  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec. Sec.  180.311 and 180.315.

0
6. In Sec.  180.370, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.370  5-Ethoxy-3-(trichloromethyl)-1,2,4-thiadiazole;
tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton, gin byproducts.....................................          0.1
Cotton, undelinted seed....................................          0.1
Tomato.....................................................         0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  180.421, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.421  Fenarimol; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      revocation
                                              million          date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple...................................             0.3         7/31/16
Apple, wet pomace.......................             0.3         7/31/16
Banana \1\..............................            0.25            None
Cattle, fat.............................            0.01         7/31/16
Cattle, kidney..........................            0.01         7/31/16
Cattle, meat............................            0.01         7/31/16
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney..            0.05         7/31/16
Cherry, sweet...........................             1.0         7/31/16
Cherry, tart............................             1.0         7/31/16
Goat, fat...............................            0.01         7/31/16
Goat, kidney............................            0.01         7/31/16
Goat, meat..............................            0.01         7/31/16

Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney....            0.05         7/31/16
Grape...................................             0.1         7/31/16
Hazelnut................................            0.02         7/31/16
Hop, dried cones........................             5.0         7/31/16
Horse, fat..............................            0.01         7/31/16
Horse, kidney...........................            0.01         7/31/16
Horse, meat.............................            0.01         7/31/16
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney...            0.05         7/31/16
Pear....................................             0.1         7/31/16
Pecan...................................            0.02         7/31/16
Sheep, fat..............................            0.01         7/31/16
Sheep, kidney...........................            0.01         7/31/16
Sheep, meat.............................            0.01         7/31/16
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney...            0.05         7/31/16
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 \2\........            0.20            None
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for bananas as of April 26, 1995.
\2\ There are no U.S. registrations for cucurbit vegetable group 9 as of
  August 27, 2010.

* * * * *

Sec.  180.422  [Removed]

0
8. Remove Sec.  180.422.

0
9. Revise Sec.  180.437 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.437  Imazamethabenz-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide imazamethabenz-methyl, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to
be determined by measuring only imazamethabenz-methyl (methyl 2-[4,5-
dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-4-
methylbenzoate) or (methyl 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-
oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methylbenzoate), as the sum of its para- and
meta-isomers in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      revocation
                                              million          date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barley, grain...........................            0.10        12/31/16
Barley, straw...........................            2.00        12/31/16
Sunflower, seed.........................            0.10        12/31/16
Wheat, grain............................            0.10        12/31/16
Wheat, straw............................            2.00        12/31/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

Sec. Sec.  180.496, 180.497, 180.530, and 180.548  [Removed]

0
10. Remove Sec. Sec.  180.496, 180.497, 180.530, and 180.548.

0
11. In Sec.  180.573, revise the table in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.573  Tepraloxydim; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      revocation
                                              million          date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton, undelinted seed.................             0.2        12/31/18
Cotton, gin byproducts..................             3.0        12/31/18
Flax, seed..............................            0.10        12/31/18
Grain, aspirated fraction...............          1200.0        12/31/18
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except                 0.10        12/31/18
 soybean, subgroup 6C \1\...............
Soybean, seed...........................             6.0        12/31/18
Soybean, hulls..........................             8.0        12/31/18
Sunflower subgroup 20B \1\..............            0.20        12/31/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for commodities in this subgroup.

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                Commodity                    Parts per      revocation
                                              million          date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat.............................            0.15        12/31/18
Cattle, kidney..........................            0.50        12/31/18
Cattle, meat............................            0.20        12/31/18
Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney..            0.20        12/31/18
Egg.....................................            0.20        12/31/18
Goat, fat...............................            0.15        12/31/18
Goat, kidney............................            0.50        12/31/18
Goat, meat..............................            0.20        12/31/18
Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney....            0.20        12/31/18
Hog, fat................................            0.15        12/31/18
Hog, kidney.............................            0.50        12/31/18
Hog, meat...............................            0.20        12/31/18
Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney.....            0.20        12/31/18
Horse, fat..............................            0.15        12/31/18
Horse, kidney...........................            0.50        12/31/18
Horse, meat.............................            0.20        12/31/18
Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney...            0.20        12/31/18
Milk....................................            0.10        12/31/18
Poultry, fat............................            0.30        12/31/18
Poultry, liver..........................            1.00        12/31/18
Poultry, meat...........................            0.20        12/31/18
Poultry, meat byproducts, except liver..            0.20        12/31/18
Sheep, fat..............................            0.15        12/31/18
Sheep, kidney...........................            0.50        12/31/18
Sheep, meat.............................            0.20        12/31/18
Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney...            0.20        12/31/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Expiration/
               Commodity                   Parts per        revocation
                                            million            date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canola, seed..........................            0.50         12/31/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
12. In Sec.  180.594, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.594  Thiacloprid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, wet pomace \1\......................................         0.60
Cattle, fat \1\............................................        0.020
Cattle, kidney \1\.........................................        0.050
Cattle, liver \1\..........................................         0.15
Cattle, meat \1\...........................................        0.030
Cattle, meat byproducts \1\................................        0.050
Cherry subgroup 12-12A \1\.................................          0.5
Cotton, gin byproducts \1\.................................         11.0
Cotton, undelinted seed \1\................................        0.020
Fruit, pome, group 11 \1\..................................         0.30
Goat, fat \1\..............................................        0.020
Goat, kidney \1\...........................................        0.050
Goat, liver \1\............................................         0.15
Goat, meat \1\.............................................        0.030
Goat, meat byproducts \1\..................................        0.050
Horse, fat \1\.............................................        0.020
Horse, kidney \1\..........................................        0.050
Horse, liver \1\...........................................         0.15
Horse, meat \1\............................................        0.030
Horse, meat byproducts \1\.................................        0.050
Milk \1\...................................................        0.030
Peach subgroup 12-12B \1\..................................          0.5
Peach subgroup 12-12C \1\..................................         0.05
Pepper \1\.................................................          1.0
Sheep, fat \1\.............................................        0.020
Sheep, kidney \1\..........................................        0.050
Sheep, liver \1\...........................................         0.15
Sheep, meat \1\............................................        0.030
Sheep, meat byproducts \1\.................................        0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for the commodity since August 6,
  2014.

* * * * *

Sec. Sec.  180.630, 180.642, 180.1107, 180.1108, 180.1113, 180.1131,
180.1144, and 180.1154  [Removed]

0
13. Remove Sec. Sec.  180.630, 180.642, 180.1107, 180.1108, 180.1113,
180.1131, 180.1144, and 180.1154.

0
14. Revise Sec.  180.1180 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1180  Kaolin; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Kaolin is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
when used on or in food commodities to aid in the control of insects,
fungi, and bacteria (food/feed use).

Sec. Sec.  180.1200, 180.1201, 180.1221, 180.1241, and
180.1256  [Removed]

0
15. Remove Sec. Sec.  180.1200, 180.1201, 180.1221, 180.1241, and
180.1256.
0
16. Revise Sec.  180.1275 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1275  Pythium oligandrum DV 74; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established on
all food/feed commodities for residues of Pythium oligandrum DV 74 when
the pesticide is used on food crops.

Sec.  180.1279  [Removed]

0
17. Remove Sec.  180.1279.

[FR Doc. 2016-12723 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41870-41871]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2023-C-1487]

Filing of Color Additive Petition From Environmental Defense
Fund, et al.; Request To Revoke Color Additive Listing for Use of
Titanium Dioxide in Food; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the color additive petition for which we published a
notice of filing in the Federal Register on May 3, 2023. In the notice,
FDA requested comments on a filed color additive petition submitted by
Environmental Defense Fund, et al., proposing that FDA repeal the color
additive regulation providing for the use of titanium dioxide in foods.
We are taking this action in response to requests for an extension to
allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the color additive
petition for which a notice of filing was published in the Federal
Register of May 3, 2023 (88 FR 27818). Either electronic or written
comments must be submitted by September 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of September 1, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-C-1487 for ``Filing of Color Additive Petition From
Environmental Defense Fund, et al.; Request To Revoke Color Additive
Listing for Use of Titanium Dioxide in Food.'' Received comments, those
filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paulette M. Gaynor, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 3, 2023 (88
FR 27819), we published a notice of filing of a color additive petition
with a 60-day comment period. We explained that, under section
721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
379e(d)(1)), we were giving notice that we had filed a color additive
petition (CAP 3C0325), submitted by Environmental Defense Fund, Center
for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in
the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group, c/o Tom Neltner,
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009. The color additive
petition proposes that we repeal the color additive regulation for
titanium dioxide in 21 CFR 73.575, which permits the use of titanium
dioxide in foods.

    We have received requests for a 60-day extension of the comment
period for the color additive petition. We have considered these
requests and are extending the comment period for the color additive
petition until September 1, 2023. We believe that a 60-day extension
allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without
significantly delaying a response to this petition.

    Dated: June 23, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-13773 Filed 6-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P