[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36222-36224]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12387]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0799; FRL-9246-02-R9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District; Open Burning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or the ``District'') portion of
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter
(PM) from agricultural open burning. We are approving additional local
restrictions on such burning under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0799. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On November 29, 2021, CARB submitted a document entitled ``Proposed
District Rule 4103 (Open Burning) Technical Submittal for Receiving SIP
Credit for Reductions in Agricultural Burning,'' dated November 18,
2021 (the ``2021 Technical Submittal''), to the EPA for inclusion in
the California SIP. The 2021 Technical Submittal includes a document
called the ``Supplemental Report and Recommendations on Agricultural
Burning'' (``2021 Supplemental Report''). Table 2-1 of the 2021
Supplemental Report, ``Accelerated Reductions by Crop Category''
includes an updated schedule of prohibitions (``2021 Schedule''). On
December 23, 2021 (86 FR 72906), the EPA proposed to approve the 2021
Schedule and the following additional materials supporting the 2021
Schedule: Resolution 21-06-12 by the SJVUAPCD Governing Board dated
June 17, 2021, Resolution 21-4 by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) dated February 25, 2021, and a letter from the CARB Executive
Officer to the SJVUAPCD dated June 18, 2021.
    We proposed to approve this SIP revision because we determined that
it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the SIP revision and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received two comments. The first comment was
from a member of the public concerning the use of open burning to
process dead and dying trees for methane reduction and to generate
renewable energy. This comment appears to concern biomass plants, which
are not regulated under SJVUAPCD Rule 4103. Furthermore, aside from
orchard waste, wood waste resulting from dead and dying trees is not
subject to the requirements of SJVUAPCD Rule 4103. As such, we do not
consider this comment to be relevant to our rulemaking.
    The second comment was from the SJVUAPCD concerning the EPA's
statement in our technical support document to the proposed rule, where
we discussed a prospective rule effectiveness (RE) value of 80% for use
in calculations for expected emission reductions for this SIP revision.
This comment is not relevant to the approvability of the Technical
Submittal, as we are not making any final determinations of creditable
RE for the 2021 agricultural burning prohibition SIP revision in this
rulemaking. Therefore, we intend to address this comment in the context
of any future action(s) that rely on emissions reductions associated
with this measure.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the SIP
revision as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized
in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the
following materials from the 2021 Technical Submittal into the SIP:
Table 2-1 ``Accelerated Reductions by Crop Category'' of the
``Supplemental Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning'' and
Resolution 21-06-12, which were adopted by the SJVUAPCD Board on June
17, 2021; Resolution 21-4 ``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Burning
Assessment'' adopted by CARB on February 25, 2021; and the letter dated
June 18, 2021 from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Samir
Sheikh, Executive Director, SJVUAPCD, concurring on the 2021
Supplemental Report.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SIP
revision from the SJVUAPCD described in Section III of this preamble
and set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The SJVUAPCD
provisions being incorporated by reference concern emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) from
agricultural open burning. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 15, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 3, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(388)(i)(B)(9),
(10) and (11) and and (c)(572) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan-in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (388) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (9) Previously approved on January 4, 2012, in paragraph
(c)(338)(i)(B)(3) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(572)(i)(A)(1) of this section, Table 9-1, Revised
Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning,
approved on May 20, 2010.
    (10) Previously approved on January 4, 2012, in paragraph
(c)(338)(i)(B)(4) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraph (c)(572)(i)(A)(2) of this section, San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District, Resolution No. 10-05-22, adopted on May 20,
2010.
    (11) Previously approved on January 4, 2012, in paragraph
(c)(338)(i)(B)(5) of this section and now deleted with replacement in
paragraphs (c)(572)(i)(B)(1) and (2) of this section, California Air
Resources Board, Resolution 10-24, adopted on May 27, 2010.
* * * * *
    (572) Amended enforceable requirements for the following APCD were
submitted on November 29, 2021, by the Governor's designee as an
attachment to a letter dated November 24, 2021.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Table 2-1, ``Accelerated Reductions by Crop Category'' of the

Supplemental Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning,
adopted on June 17, 2021.
    (2) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Governing Board Resolution 21-06-12 ``Approve Supplemental Report and
Recommendations on Agricultural Burning,'' adopted June 17, 2021.
    (B) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Resolution 21-4 ``San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Burning
Assessment,'' adopted on February 25, 2021.
    (2) Letter dated June 18, 2021, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Samir Sheikh, Executive Director, SJVUAPCD,
concurring on the SJVUAPCD Supplemental Report and Recommendations on
Agricultural Burning, approved June 17, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2022-12387 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30440-30443]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0348]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage; Change to Cottonwood Island Anchorage, Columbia River,
Oregon and Washington

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its proposed rule to increase the
availability of designated anchorages on the Columbia River. In
response to comments on its prior proposal, the Coast Guard proposes a
smaller extension of the Cottonwood Island Anchorage than that
originally proposed, and the creation of a new anchorage area upriver
from the center of the City of Prescott, OR.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0348 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Branch,
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0348), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2011-0348'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0348'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The Captain of the Port Columbia River believes that the size of
the Cottonwood Island Anchorage is insufficient as currently
established based on both the current demand for anchorage grounds and
the forecasted growth of vessel traffic on the Columbia River.
Sufficient anchorage area, both in number and size, is especially
important in this area because of the unpredictable hazardous
conditions of the Columbia River Bar, which at times prevents vessels
from safely navigating downriver. This rule would increase the size of
the current Cottonwood Island Anchorage and create a new anchorage on
the Columbia River.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    In June of 2011 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) that proposed the expansion of the Cottonwood Island
Anchorage to river mile 72-26. This NPRM received a total of eleven
comments. Nine comments were made in support of the new change to the
Cottonwood Island Anchorage area. Two comments, made by a consortium of
local land owners, expressed concerns that vessels anchoring in the
parts of the proposed anchorage near residential areas ashore could
negatively impact air quality, noise levels, and property values. The
distance between the shore-side boundary of the anchorage and the shore
in this residential area is less than 70 feet.
    To address the stated issues the Coast Guard proposes a smaller
extension of the Cottonwood Island Anchorage than that originally
proposed and the creation of a new anchorage area upriver from the
center of the City of Prescott, OR. The resulting anchorage grounds
would not include the waters off of the residential areas that prompted
the two comments by land owners.
    This revised proposed rule would extend the east side of the
existing Cottonwood Island Anchorage to river mile 71-08. The newly
created Prescott Anchorage would be located between the Oregon side of
the Columbia River channel and the Oregon shore. It would extend
approximately from river mile 72-05 to river mile 72-26.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. The proposed rule is not
significant because the modification of the existing anchorage and
establishment of a new anchorage area should not have any significant
costs or impacts on maritime activities associated with it.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small

entities because the modification of an existing anchorage and the
creation of a new anchorage does not have any significant costs or
impacts on maritime activities associated with it.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the Waterways Management Branch,
Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland, Oregon, telephone 503-240-
9319. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves increasing the size of an anchorage and creating a new
anchorage area, which is categorically excluded, under Figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(f) of the Instruction. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Revise Sec.  110.228(a)(10) and (11) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.228  Columbia River, Oregon and Washington.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Cottonwood Island Anchorage. The waters of the Columbia River
bounded by a line connecting the following points:

46[deg]05'56.88'' N                  122[deg]56'53.19'' W
46[deg]05'14.06'' N                  122[deg]54'45.71'' W

46[deg]04'57.12'' N                  122[deg]54'12.41'' W
46[deg]04'37.55'' N                  122[deg]53'45.80'' W
46[deg]04'13.72'' N                  122[deg]53'23.66'' W
46[deg]03'54.94'' N                  122[deg]53'11.81'' W
46[deg]03'34.96'' N                  122[deg]53'03.17'' W
46[deg]03'11.61'' N                  122[deg]52'56.29'' W
46[deg]03'10.94'' N                  122[deg]53'10.55'' W
46[deg]03'32.06'' N                  122[deg]53'19.69'' W
46[deg]03'50.84'' N                  122[deg]53'27.81'' W
46[deg]04'08.10'' N                  122[deg]53'38.70'' W
46[deg]04'29.41'' N                  122[deg]53'58.17'' W
46[deg]04'49.89'' N                  122[deg]54'21.57'' W
46[deg]05'06.95'' N                  122[deg]54'50.65'' W
46[deg]05'49.77'' N                  122[deg]56'58.12'' W

    (11) Prescott Anchorage. The waters of the Columbia River bounded
by a line connecting the following points:

46[deg]02'47.01'' N                  122[deg]52'53.90'' W
46[deg]02'26.32'' N                  122[deg]52'51.89'' W
46[deg]02'25.92'' N                  122[deg]53'00.38'' W
46[deg]02'46.54'' N                  122[deg]53'03.87'' W

* * * * *

    Dated: May 18, 2012.
 A.T. Ewalt,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2012-12456 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57422]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22787]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday,
September 18, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matters of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt new rules
and forms under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to the
registration of municipal advisors.
     The Commission will consider whether to propose rules to
require companies to disclose the median annual total compensation of
all employees and the ratio of that median to the annual total
compensation of the company's chief executive officer as mandated by
Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
    The duty officer has determined that no earlier notice was
possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 13, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22787 Filed 9-16-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


\167\ Based on the aggregate cost of an advanced data protection
server.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Mandatory Reliability Standards, Version 4 Critical
Infrastructure Protection Standards.
    Action: Revised Collection FERC-725B.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions; not-for-
profit institutions.
    Frequency of Responses: On Occasion.
    Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule approves the
requested modifications to Reliability Standards pertaining to critical
infrastructure protection. The Reliability Standards help ensure the
reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System by providing a
cybersecurity framework for the identification and protection of
Critical Assets and associated Critical Cyber Assets. As discussed
above, the Commission approves NERC's proposed Version 4 CIP Standards
pursuant to section 215(d)(2) of the FPA because they represent an
improvement to the previously-effective CIP Reliability Standards.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed
Reliability Standards and made a determination that its action is
necessary to implement section 215 of the FPA.
    123. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
    124. Comments concerning this information collection can be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(202) 395-7285].

IV. Environmental Analysis

    125. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a

significant adverse effect on the human environment.\168\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying,
corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the
effect of the regulations being amended.\169\ The actions taken here
fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), Order No. 486, FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \169\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    126. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \170\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize
any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\171\
The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating
that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric
energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve
months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \171\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \172\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. This Final Rule may have a significant economic impact on some
small entities. The Commission estimates that 12 of the total small
entities applicable to this final rule will experience a total one-time
impact of $4,285,623 (an average of $357,135 per entity). However, the
Commission has determined that 12 small entities is not a ``substantial
number'' in terms of the total number of regulated small entities under
this Final Rule. The Final Rule applies to the all NERC Registered
Entities listed in the ``Applicability'' section of Reliability
Standard CIP-002-4.\173\ This list includes reliability coordinators,
balancing authorities, interchange authorities, transmission service
providers, transmission owners, transmission operators, generator
owners, generator operators, load serving entities and regional
entities. Using the NERC registry, the Commission found that the number
of small entities applicable to this rule is 306. The Commission does
not consider 12 out of 306 (3.9%) to be a substantial number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See Reliability Standard CIP-002-4, http://www.nerc.com/files/CIP-002-4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    128. In the September 15, 2011 NOPR, the Commission requested
comment on the potential implementation cost and subsequent cost
increases that could be experienced by such small entities. No comments
were received.
    129. Based on the foregoing, the Commission certifies that the
modified Reliability Standards will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Document Availability

    130. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    131. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    132. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-
6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    133. These regulations are effective June 25, 2012. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 40

    Electric power, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

Appendix

                               Commenters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Abbreviation                           Commenter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMP.......................................  American Municipal Power,
                                             Inc.
Constellation.............................  Constellation Energy Group,
                                             Inc. (intervened w/o
                                             comment).
Dominion..................................  Dominion Resources Services,
                                             Inc.
Exelon....................................  Exelon Corporation.
FirstEnergy...............................  FirstEnergy Service Company.
G&T Cooperatives..........................  Associated Electric
                                             Cooperative, Inc.; Basin
                                             Electric Power Cooperative;
                                             and Tri-State Generation
                                             and Transmission
                                             Association, Inc.
Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec.......................  Hydro-Qu[eacute]bec
                                             Trans[Eacute]nergie.
ISO/RTO Council...........................  The ISO/RTO Council.
ITC.......................................  International Transmission
                                             Company d/b/a
                                             ITCTransmission, Michigan
                                             Electric Company, LLC, ITC
                                             Midwest LLC and ITC Great
                                             Plains LLC.
KCP&L.....................................  Kansas City Power & Light
                                             Company and KCP&L Greater
                                             Missouri Operations
                                             Company.
MISO......................................  Midwest Independent
                                             Transmission System
                                             Operator, Inc.
NERC......................................  North American Electric
                                             Reliability Corporation.
PG&E......................................  Pacific Gas and Electric
                                             Company.
NV Energy.................................  Sierra Pacific Power Company
                                             and Nevada Power Company.

SPP RE....................................  Southwest Power Pool
                                             Regional Entity.
Tallahassee...............................  City of Tallahassee,
                                             Florida.
Trade Associations........................  American Public Power
                                             Association; Electricity
                                             Consumers Resource Council;
                                             Edison Electric Institute;
                                             Electric Power Supply
                                             Association; National Rural
                                             Electric Cooperative
                                             Association; and
                                             Transmission Access Policy
                                             Study Group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-9893 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Date: April 16, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Naphthenate Salts (zinc/copper)- Endpoint Selection Report.

FROM:	Timothy F. McMahon, Ph.D

		Senior Toxicologist

Antimicrobials  Division (7510C)

TO:		Kathryn Jakob, Chemical Review Manager

		Mark Hartman, Branch Chief

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510C)

		         And

		Timothy F. McMahon, Ph.D., Risk Assessor

		Antimicrobials Division  (7510C)

 		PC Code:  024002

   Toxicity endpoints of concern were selected by the Antimicrobials
Division for naphthenate salts. Scientists from the Antimicrobials
Division as well as from the Registration Division, Health Effects
Division, and Biopesticides Division participated in the endpoint
selection.     Potential enhanced sensitivity of infants and children
from exposure to naphthenate salts was not assessed as there are no food
uses for these chemicals.    The conclusions of this meeting are
presented in this report.

  In Attendance

Stephen Dapson, Ph.D.; Jonathan Chen, Ph.D.; Steve Malish, Ph.D.; Jenny
Tao; Timothy F. McMahon, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The naphthenate salts (copper and zinc naphthenate) are both salts of
naphthenic acid, which is essentially a mixture of cyclic carboxylic
acids, predominantly cyclopentane derivatives with an average molecular
weight of 200-300 (BIBRA, 1999).  The mixture may also contain some
cyclic hydrocarbons (BIBRA, 1999).  The naphthenate salts are considered
together for hazard characterization.  The presence of a zinc or copper
ion does not have a significant influence on the mammalian toxicity of
naphthenic acid.

Both   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 copper and zinc naphthenate are
microbiocide/microbiostat, miticide, fungicide, insecticide, algaecide
and herbicide/terrestrial chemicals. Use sites for copper naphthenate
include pressure treatment and non –pressure treatment of wood for
exterior uses (residential and non-residential), wood used in contact
with fresh or salt water, and exterior wood exposed to moisture or
weather. Copper naphthenate is also used in brush, dip, roller, and low
pressure spray applications for the same uses listed above, and in
addition is used for greenhouse and horticultural uses (non-food
applications including wooden seedling trays, plant and flower boxes for
ornamental plantings, trellises, arbors, greenhouse benches, and nursery
flats).  Application by occupational applicators only includes  brush,
dip, roller, and low pressure spray to beverage cases, baskets, tents,
awnings, tarpaulins, canvas products, nets [except fishnets], ropes,
cordage, lumber for ammunition boxes, other boxes, crates, and
miscellaneous non –food contact containers, truck and boat covers,
non-rubber fabrics, and burlap. Copper naphthenate is also used as a
remedial treatment for standing wood utility poles, mine timbers, bridge
timbers, and cross-ties and stakes.

Zinc naphthenate use sites are the same as for copper naphthenate but do
not include remedial treatments  or to beverage cases, etc. as listed
for copper naphthenate.

There is also one tolerance exemption for residues of copper naphthenate
when used in accordance with good agricultural practice as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only (40
CFR 180.920). No more than 2.5% copper naphthenate can be present, and
products containing copper naphthenate can only be applied before the
edible portions of plants begin to form.

HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

A. Acute Reference Dose (aRfD)

The committee agreed that there were no use sites that involve direct or
indirect food use of naphthenate salts.  Therefore, an acute  reference
dose is not required.

B. Chronic Reference Dose (cPAD)

The committee agreed that there were no use sites that involve direct or
indirect food use of naphthenate salts.  Therefore, a chronic reference
dose is not required.

C. Incidental Oral Exposure (short-term [1-30 days] and
intermediate-term [30 days-6months])

Study Selected: Developmental toxicity study in rats   (OPPTS 870.3700)

MRID Number: 41615101

Executive Summary:  In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 41615101),
copper naphthenate (purity assumed to be 100%) in corn oil, was
administered by gastric intubation to 4 groups of 25 rats/dose by
gastric intubation at dose levels of 0, 30, 100, or 300 mg/kg/day,
respectively, from gestation days (GD) 6 to 15.  The animals were
checked daily from gestation day 6 for indications of toxicity.  Body
weights were recorded daily from gestation days 6 through 15 and on
gestation days 16 and 21.  Food and water consumption were measured at 3
day intervals beginning on gestation day 6.  Examinations at sacrifice
consisted of a determination of the number and position of live, dead,
and resorbed fetuses and staining of apparent nonpregnant uteri along
with liver weights.

Maternal toxicity was noted in the 100 and 300 mg/kg/day groups in the
form of decreases in body weight and food consumption.  Evaluation of
developmental toxicity revealed an increase in the mean number of early
resorptions only, however the mean litter size of the treated and
control groups was comparable.  Therefore, these increases were
considered to be of no biological significance.  The maternal NOAEL is
30 mg/kg/day and the maternal LOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day.  The
developmental; toxicity NOAEL was determined to be greater than or equal
to 300 mg/kg/day and the developmental toxicity LOAEL was greater than
300 mg/kg/day.

Dose Selected for Risk Assessment:  Maternal NOAEL of 30 mg/kg/day  was
selected based on  decreases in body weight gain and food consumption
observed at 100 mg/kg/day.

Uncertainty factors:  A 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
interspecies extrapolation, and a 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
intraspecies variation. These are standard uncertainty factors applied
by the Agency when citing results from animal studies for purposes of
human risk assessment.

D.  Dermal Absorption

Dermal Absorption Factor:   Dermal absorption data are not available for
naphthenate salts.  However, a route-specific study is available for
dermal risk assessments.

D1. Short-term (1-30 days) Dermal

Study Selected:   90 day dermal toxicity in rabbits  (OPPTS 870.3200)

MRID Number: 41615001

Executive Summary:   In a 90-day dermal toxicity test (MRID 41615001)
designed to determine the subchronic toxicity effects of repeated dermal
exposure to zinc naphthenate (14.5% purity) in New Zealand white
rabbits,  rabbits were dermally exposed to 0, 100, 300, or 1000
mg/kg/day of zinc naphthenate 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 13 weeks.
 Animals were observed twice daily for signs of mortality and
moribundity and daily for signs of toxicity.

Systemic toxicity was observed in the form of significantly  reduced
body weight gain in the high dose group throughout the study.  In male
rabbits, body weight gain decrement was also seen in the mid dose group
throughout the study.  No treatment related clinical signs of systemic
toxicity were noted (hematology, clinical chemistry or histopathology).
In terms of dermal effects there were apparent dose related increases in
macroscopic and microscopic lesions related to dermal irritation.

The systemic  toxicity NOAEL is (100 mg/kg/day, M/F).  The systemic
toxicity LOAEL is (300 mg/kg/day, M/F), based on reductions in body
weight gain.  The dermal toxicity NOAEL is less than (100 mg/kg/day).
The dermal toxicity LOAEL is less than or equal to (100 mg/kg/day).

This study is classified as Core-Minimum - Guideline.

Dose and Endpoint selected for Risk Assessment:   LOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day
based on moderate to severe dermal irritation observed during the first
4 weeks of the study.  It should be noted that in this study, a
tolerance developed to the dermal irritating effects of zinc naphthenate
during the final weeks of the study.  Therefore, the use of dermal
irritation for the short-term dermal endpoint is supported.

Uncertainty factors:  A 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
interspecies extrapolation, and a 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
intraspecies variation.  A 3x factor is applied additionally for the use
of a LOAEL value.  These are standard uncertainty factors applied by the
Agency when citing results from animal studies for purposes of human
risk assessment.

 D2. Intermediate-term (30 days- 6months) Dermal

Study Selected:   90 day dermal toxicity in rabbits  (OPPTS 870.3200)

MRID Number: 41615001

Executive Summary:   In a 90-day dermal toxicity test (MRID 41615001)
designed to determine the subchronic toxicity effects of repeated dermal
exposure to zinc naphthenate (14.5% purity) in New Zealand white
rabbits,  rabbits were dermally exposed to 0, 100, 300, or 1000
mg/kg/day of zinc naphthenate 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 13 weeks.
 Animals were observed twice daily for signs of mortality and
moribundity and daily for signs of toxicity.

Systemic toxicity was observed in the form of significantly  reduced
body weight gain in the high dose group throughout the study.  In male
rabbits, body weight gain decrement was also seen in the mid dose group
throughout the study.  No treatment related clinical signs of systemic
toxicity were noted (hematology, clinical chemistry or histopathology).
In terms of dermal effects there were apparent dose related increases in
macroscopic and microscopic lesions related to dermal irritation.

The systemic  toxicity NOAEL is (100 mg/kg/day, M/F).  The systemic
toxicity LOAEL is (300 mg/kg/day, M/F), based on reductions in body
weight gain.  The dermal toxicity NOAEL is less than (100 mg/kg/day).
The dermal toxicity LOAEL is less than or equal to (100 mg/kg/day).

This study is classified as Core-Minimum - Guideline.

Dose and Endpoint selected for Risk Assessment:   NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day
based on significant reductions in body weight gain at 300 mg/kg/day.

Uncertainty factors:  A 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
interspecies extrapolation, and a 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
intraspecies variation.   These are standard uncertainty factors applied
by the Agency when citing results from animal studies for purposes of
human risk assessment.

E. Inhalation Exposure

E1. Inhalation- All Durations

Study selected:   Developmental toxicity study in rats

MRID Number: 41615101

Executive Summary:    In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 41615101),
 copper naphthenate (purity assumed to be 100%) in corn oil, was
administered by gastric intubation to 4 groups of 25 rats/dose by
gastric intubation at dose levels of 0, 30, 100, or 300 mg/kg/day,
respectively, from gestation days (GD) 6 to 15.  The animals were
checked daily from gestation day 6 for indications of toxicity.  Body
weights were recorded daily from gestation days 6 through 15 and on
gestation days 16 and 21.  Food and water consumption were measured at 3
day intervals beginning on gestation day 6.  Examinations at sacrifice
consisted of a determination of the number and position of live, dead,
and resorbed fetuses and staining of apparent nonpregnant uteri along
with liver weights.

Maternal toxicity was noted in the 100 and 300 mg/kg/day groups in the
form of decreases in body weight and food consumption.  Evaluation of
developmental toxicity revealed an increase in the mean number of early
resorptions only, however the mean litter size of the treated and
control groups was comparable.  Therefore, these increases were
considered to be of no biological significance.  The maternal NOAEL is
30 mg/kg/day and the maternal LOAEL is 100 mg/kg/day.  The
developmental; toxicity NOAEL was determined to be greater than or equal
to 300 mg/kg/day and the developmental toxicity LOAEL was greater than
300 mg/kg/day.

Dose Selected for Risk Assessment:  Maternal NOAEL of 30 mg/kg/day was
selected based on  decreases in body weight gain and food consumption
observed at 100 mg/kg/day.

Comments about Study/Margins of Exposure:   There are no repeated dose
inhalation toxicity studies available for naphthenate salts.  An oral
endpoint with an additional 10x uncertainty factor for route
extrapolation is selected.

Uncertainty factors:  A 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
interspecies extrapolation, and a 10x uncertainty factor is applied for
intraspecies variation. An additional 10x uncertainty factor is applied
for route extrapolation from an oral study.

F. Margins of Exposure for Occupational/Residential Exposure Risk
Assessments

Route

Short-term (1-30 days)

Intermediate-term (30 days- 6 months)

Long-term (> 6 months)

Oral

100

100

N/A

Dermal

300

100

N/A

Inhalation

1000

1000

1000

G. Recommendation for Aggregate Risk Assessments

To be determined on the basis of the exposure chapter.

CLASSIFICATION OF CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL

Naphthenate salts have not been formally classified as to
carcinogenicity.  There are no carcinogenicity studies available for
naphthenate salts.

MUTAGENICITY

 Mutagenicity studies have been submitted and reviewed by the Office of
Pesticide Programs for  naphthenate salts.  These studies are considered
unacceptable/upgradable.  If information on test material purity is
provided these studies may be upgraded to acceptable. Summaries are
provided here for information purposes.

870.5300	In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation test

There were two gene mutation assays.  In the first study , MRID
41402502, copper naphthenate, at concentrations of 0, 4.2, 5.6, 7.5, 10,
13, 24, 32, 42 and 56 ug/ml without metabolic activation and at 0, 3.2,
4.2, 5.6, 7.5, 10, 13, 18, 24, 32 and 42 ug/ml with metabolic activation
(S-9 Mix) was evaluated for mutagenic potential using the L5178Y TK+/-
mouse lymphoma mutagenesis assay.  A repeat test confirmed the increase
of mutant frequencies with copper naphthenate in the presence of
metabolic activation (+S9).  In another mouse lymphoma assay (MRID
41400701), zinc naphthenate was tested with mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK +/-
cells without and with rat liver activation (male Sprague-Dawley,
Aroclor 1254 induced) in two trials with duplicate cultures per
concentration for 4 hours of exposure. The concentrations used were,
without activation: Trial 1:  (ethanol), 3.2, 4.2, 5.6, 7.5, 10, 13, 18,
24, 32, 42, 56 and 75 ug/ml; trial 2 ) (ethanol), 7.5, 11, 15, 19, 23,
27, 30, 33, 36, 40, 44 and 48 ug/ml.  With activation, the
concentrations were: Trial 1: (ethanol), 4.2, 5.6, 7.5, 10, 13, 18, 24,
32, 42, 56, 75 and 100 ug/ml; trial 2: 0 (ethanol), 23, 27, 30, 33, 36,
40, 44, 48, 52, 56, 65 and 75 ug/ml. Several of the higher
concentrations per trial were too toxic to process.  There was a
possible adverse effect due to the mutation frequency was increased in a
concentration-dependent response both without and with activation.
There was also a greater increase in small colonies versus large
colonies with exposure to zinc naphthenate as opposed to copper
naphthenate exposure.  Although the Office of Pesticide Programs
reported these two studies to be unacceptable, California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CAL EPA) found the studies to be Acceptable.

870.5385	Mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test

There were two chromosome aberration tests submitted to the Agency.  In
the first study (MRID 41402503), copper naphthenate , at concentrations
of 4, 8, 15, 30 and 60 ug/ml without metabolic activation at 2, 4, 8, 15
and 30 ug/ml with Aroclor-induced rat liver S-9 mix was tested in the
first trial in a chromosome aberration assay using Chinese hamster ovary
cells.  Concentrations in the repeat trial –S9 were 40, 80, 120 and
160 ug/ml and +S9 were 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 ug/ml.  Total incubation was
16 hours –S9 and 12 hours (with a 2 hour exposure to treatment) +S9.
The mitotic index decreased at 120 ug/ml with no mitotic cells and at
160 ug/ml without activation.  No effect on the mitotic index was seen
at any concentration with activation.  There were no significant
reproducible increases in CHO cells with aberrations for any of the
copper naphthenate doses.  In the other study (MRID 41400702),zinc
naphthenate was tested in two trials without metabolic activation at
concentrations   0, 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 ug/ml (first trial) and  0, 80,
110, 140, 170 and 200 ug/ml (second trial). In the presence of metabolic
activation, two trials were also conducted, the first at   0, 10, 20,
40, 80 and 160 ug/ml and the second at 0, 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140
ug/ml.  Exposure without activation was 18 hours followed by an
additional 2 hours with colcemid.  With activation, exposure was 2 hours
followed by 18 hours, both for a total of 20 hours.  In the repeat trial
with results reported at 80, 110 and 140 ug/ml, positive results were
found at all three concentrations.  With activation, in the first trial,
positive results were found at 80 ug/ml  in the repeat +S9 trial,
positive results were reported at 60, 80 and 100 ug/ml..  In both repeat
trials, there was a concentration dependent increase.  There was a
possible adverse effect of an  increase in chromosomal aberrations with
increasing concentrations of zinc naphthenate. Although the Agency
reported these two studies to be Unacceptable, the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (CAL  EPA) found the studies to be Acceptable.

Unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cells in culture

 Two Unscheduled DNA Synthesis  (UDS) studies were also reviewed by OPP.
 In the first study (MRID 41402504), copper naphthenate at
concentrations of 0, .15, 0.5, 1.5, 5.0 and 15 ug/ml was evaluated in
the unscheduled DNA synthesis test using rat primary hepatocytes and
autoradiography.  The mean number of net nuclear grains did not increase
significantly at any dose level over the solvent control.  It was
concluded, therefore, that copper napthenate was tested over an
appropriate range of concentrations and failed to induce a genotoxic
response.  In the other UDS study (MRID 41400703), primary rat
hepatocytes, isolated from male livers, were treated with zinc
naphthenate at concentrations of  0, .15, 0.5, 1.5, 5.0 , 15 or 35 ug/ml
for 18-20 hours in the presence of  10 uCi/ml 3H-thymidine.   At
concentrations of 35 ug/ml and higher, the zinc naphthenate apparently
interfered with the LDH assay as the release of LDH with 1% Triton was
less when zinc naphthenate was present.   There was no evidence for the
induction of UDS by zinc naphthenate to toxic doses.  Toxicity was also
evaluated microscopically by cellular morphology.  There was no adverse
effect under the conditions of the assay.  It was concluded, therefore,
that zinc naphthenate was tested over an appropriate range of
concentrations and failed to induce a genotoxic response.

FQPA CONSIDERATIONS

There are no indirect or direct food uses for naphthenate salts.  Thus
an FQPA analysis is not necessary.

DATA GAPS / REQUIREMENTS

 A repeated dose inhalation toxicity study with naphthenate saltes is
considered a data gap for adequate assessment of risk from inhalation
exposures arising from paint and wood preservative uses.

Data on the test article characterization is needed to upgrade the
existing mutagenicity studies for the naphthenate salts.  VII. 	ACUTE
TOXICITY

Acute Toxicity of  Naphthenate Salts

Table 3.  Acute Toxicity Profile for Copper/Zinc Naphthenate

Guideline Number	Study Type/Test substance (% a.i.)	MRID Number/

Citation	Results	Toxicity Category

870.1100

(§81-1)	Acute Oral- Rat

purity 45.4% -copper naphthenate	00266172	LD50 > 501 mg/kg	III

870.1100

(§81-1)	Acute Oral- Rat

purity 58% -copper naphthenate	433342402	Not determined	N/A

870.1100

(§81-1)	Acute Oral- Rat

purity 60%- zinc naphthenate	00244277	LD50 > 2000 mg/kg	IV

870.1200

(§81-2)	Acute Dermal- Rabbit

purity not determined – copper naphthenate	41140710	LD50 > 2000 mg/kg
III

870.1200

(§81-2)	Acute Dermal- Rabbit

Purity 60%-zinc naphthenate	00244277	LD50 > 2000 mg/kg	III

870.1300

(§81-3)	Acute Inhalation- Rabbit

Purity technical- copper naphthenate	41486301	LC50 > 2.966 mg/L	III

870.1300

(§81-3)	Acute Inhalation- Rabbit

Purity 60%- zinc naphthenate	00244277	LC50 > 11.6 mg/L	IV

870.2400

(§81-4)	Primary Eye Irritation- Rabbit purity 80% -copper naphthenate
00260891	Redness cleared on day 4	III

870.2400

(§81-4)	Primary Eye Irritation- Guinea pig purity 60% -zinc naphthenate
00244277	Redness cleared on day 2	III

870.2500

(§81-5)	Primary Dermal Irritation- Rabbit

purity technical –copper naphthenate	41140710	Moderate Irritant	III

870.2500

(§81-5)	Primary Dermal Irritation- Rabbit

60% -zinc naphthenate	00244277	Moderate to severe Irritant	II

870.2600

(§81-6)	Dermal Sensitization - Guinea pig

purity 58 % - copper naphthenate	41140710	Not a sensitizer.	No

870.2600

(§81-6)	Dermal Sensitization - Guinea pig

purity 60 % - zinc naphthenate	00244277	Primary skin irritant/possible
sensitizing agent	No

VIII. 	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGY ENDPOINT SELECTION
FOR NAPHTHENATE SALTS

 TABLE 4: Naphthenate Salts (Copper/Zinc) Endpoints for use in Risk
Assessments

Exposure Scenario

	Dose Selected for Risk Assessment	Target MOE for Risk Assessments	Study
Selected and Toxicological Effects

Non-Dietary Risk Assessments

Incidental Oral

Short–Term

(1 - 30 Days)

 	NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day

 	Target MOE= 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species
variation)

	Developmental Toxicity – Rat (Copper Naphthenate)

 MRID 41615101

Maternal NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight and food
consumption at 100 mg/kg/day

Incidental Oral

Intermediate-Term

(1-6 months)

 	NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day

 	Target MOE= 100 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species
variation)

	Developmental Toxicity – Rat (Copper Naphthenate)

 MRID 41615101

Maternal NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, based on decreased body weight and food
consumption at 100 mg/kg/day

Short -Term Dermal

(1 - 30 Days)	LOAEL=100 mg/kg/day	Target MOE=300 (10x inter-species
extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation, 3x for use of LOAEL)

	90-day dermal toxicity-rabbit MRID 41515001 (Zinc naphthenate)

LOAEL(dermal) = 100 mg/kg/day, based on erythema, edema, and
desquamation at 100 mg/kg/day

Intermediate -Term Dermal

(30 Days- 6 months)	NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day	Target MOE=100 (10x
inter-species extrapolation, 10x intra-species variation)

	90-day dermal toxicity-rabbit MRID 41515001 (Zinc naphthenate)

NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day, based on reductions in body weight gain observed
at 300 mg/kg/day.

Inhalationa

( all exposure durations)

	NOAEL= 100 mg/kg/day

MOE = 1000c	Target MOE = 1000 (10x inter-species extrapolation, 10x
intra-species variation, 10x route-extrapolation)	Developmental Toxicity
– Rat (Copper Naphthenate) MRID 41615101

Maternal LOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day, based decreased body weight and food
consumption at 100 mg/kg/day.

Cancer	Not classified;  no cancer data available.

 a an additional uncertainty factor of 10x is used for route
extrapolation from an oral endpoint.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  5

 PAGE  6

 PAGE  15


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31736-31739]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0022; FRL-9964-61-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Louisville Miscellaneous Rule
Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 29, 2012, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), submitted changes to the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) on behalf of the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District (District or Jefferson County).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
several changes that modify the District's air quality regulations as
incorporated into the SIP. The changes

to the regulatory portion of the SIP that EPA is proposing to approve
pertain to definitional changes, administrative amendments, open
burning, standards of performance, and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). EPA is proposing to approve these changes because the
Commonwealth and Jefferson County have demonstrated that these changes
are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0022 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Lakeman can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?

    On August 29, 2012, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval that involves changes to Jefferson County regulations related
to acronym additions, administrative amendments, open burning,
standards of performance, and VOCs. EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to Jefferson County Regulation 1.03--Abbreviations and
Acronyms; Regulation 1.08--Administrative Procedures; Regulation 1.11--
Control of Open Burning; Regulation 1.19--Administrative Hearings;
Regulation 6.18--Standards of Performance for Solvent Metal Cleaning
Equipment; Regulation 6.43--Volatile Organic Compound Emission
Reduction Requirements; and repeal Regulation 7.18--Standards of
Performance for New Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment.

II. Background

    This proposed action will update Kentucky's acronyms and make
changes to other regulations approved into the SIP. The changes made to
the regulations other than definitions are administrative in nature,
including updating internal references. Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP
revision can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at
www.regulations.gov and are summarized below.

III. EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP Revision

a. Regulations 1.03 Abbreviations and Acronyms

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision changes Regulation 1.03 by adding
acronyms and abbreviations and is referred to as version 6 of this
regulation. EPA is proposing to approve all of the changes to
Regulation 1.03. Changes to Regulation 1.03 consist of adding acronyms
to make them consistent with definitions used by EPA. Several acronyms
were added to Regulation 1.03 for clarity. Some of the acronyms that
were added are associated with various cancer terms. Other acronyms
pertain to areas such as modeling, environmental acceptability,
integrated risk, lethal concentrations, and toxics. Most of the
acronyms were added due to the adoption of the Strategic Toxic Air
Reduction Program (STAR) Program, which was adopted on June 21, 2005.

b. Regulation 1.08 Administrative Procedures

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision also makes changes to Regulation
1.08 by updating the regulation to be consistent with the state
regulation in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statutes. Versions 12 and
13 of this regulation have been submitted for approval in this
submission. The changes to Regulation 1.08 mostly contain provisions
for open records in Section 6 ``Confidentiality and Open Records
Policy.'' The District's changes make the rule consistent with the
Kentucky Open Records Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 61.870 to
61.884. The changes to the Open Records Act are to reflect the
currently available technology options for delivering submissions. The
District also is making some revisions to the public hearing section
due to the adoption of the STAR Program. Section 3 ``Procedures at
Public Hearings'' is being updated to: Reflect the public hearing
procedures that have been implemented for many years, which add
``representative of the affective entity'' to replace ``the
petitioner;'' consolidate Regulation 3.13 and 3.14 to allow persons to
submit evidence and make a statement in support of and in opposition to
a proposed action; and make a few other non-substantive wording
changes.

c. Regulation 1.11 Control of Open Burning

    The August 29, 2012, submittal also makes changes to Regulation
1.11 which updates the restrictions on open burning. Versions 9 and 10
of this regulation have been submitted for approval in this submission.
The proposed changes to Regulation 1.11 enhance the District's control
over open burning activities that are exempt from the general
prohibition of open burning by requiring written requests and/or
notice, including information about the material to be burned, and
District approval for various types of fires. Agricultural fires are
further restricted to occur at times when there is a maximum wind speed
of 15 miles per hour.
    The regulation has also been updated to recognize fire pits.
Similar to the provision for personal cooking fires, personal fires
from small fire pits, including chimineas and open-top fire chambers do
not require the District's approval and are exempt from the general
prohibition on open burning. The size restriction for personal fire
pits is 3x3x3 feet. Ceremonial and commercial fires, regardless of
whether they occur in fire pits, still require the District's approval
and are restricted in size to 5x5x5 feet. The changes also removed
reference to the flare stacks as open burning, added language about
special case fires and how they would be treated on an individual
basis, described accelerants that are prohibited, and prohibited barrel
burning.

d. Regulation 1.19 Administrative Hearings

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision also makes changes to the
language in Regulation 1.19 to make it consistent with KRS 77.310
Proceedings for alleged violations of chapter or regulations and for
petitions for a hearing on board

orders or determination--Hearing officer. The language in Regulation
1.19 was revised from applying solely to Board orders and expanded to
include Board orders and ``determinations.'' Version 2 of this
regulation has been submitted for approval in this SIP revision. The
other amendments to this regulation ensure that there is not a conflict
of interest between board members and anyone affiliated with the
proceeding. It bars communication between any party affiliated with a
proceeding and any member of the Board.

e. Regulation 6.18 Standards of Performance for Solvent Metal Cleaning
Equipment

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision also makes changes to Regulation
6.18 which updates the restrictions on solvent cleaning. Version 7 of
this regulation has been submitted for approval in this SIP revision.
Regulation 6.18 is being changed to reduce VOC emissions from cold
cleaning equipment through adding work place standards and requirements
for equipment use, including cover requirements, flushing, solvent
flow, fan placement, solvent storage, and parts cleaning instructions.
Changes also include requiring owners and operators of cold cleaning
equipment to evaluate the possibility of using lower or non-VOC
containing solvents whenever feasible. The changes to the regulation
have to be implemented before the issuance of a permit pursuant to
Regulations 2.16 Title V Operating Permits or Regulation 2.05
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. The update to
this regulation will now supersede Regulation 7.18 and allow its
repeal.

f. Regulation 6.43 Volatile Organic Compound Emission Reduction
Requirements

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision, if approved, also makes changes
to Regulation 6.43, which updates VOC emissions reduction strategy,
including operational requirements for named stationary sources, each
of which has voluntarily agreed to these requirements. Versions 4 and 5
of this regulation have been submitted for approval in this SIP
revision. The changes to this regulation include: An emission reduction
strategy for American Synthetic Rubber Company to allow the use of a
new oxidizer or boiler to control emissions, an update to the names of
four stationary sources that changed names, and a change to the
emission inventory system number for Dupont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. in
Section 11 to the current number. Also, two stationary sources that are
no longer in operation are being removed from the emissions inventory.
This SIP revision also replaced Carbide Industries' company specific
VOC reduction process with an equivalent plant-wide VOC limit. Carbide
Industries LLC requested a revision to the operating procedures while
leaving the VOC emission limits in place. The previous operating
procedures of the regulation would not have permitted storage of
acetylene onsite. Because Carbide Industries no longer has a buyer of
acetylene, which is a byproduct of their process, they now have a need
to store acetylene onsite. This change allows Carbide Industries to
remain in compliance with Regulation 6.43 while achieving equivalent
VOC reductions, which is the intended purpose of the regulation.

g. Regulation 7.18 Standards of Performance for New Solvent Metal
Cleaning Equipment

    The August 29, 2012, SIP revision also repeals Regulation 7.18
because it was superseded by Regulation 6.18--Standards of Performance
for Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment. In this SIP revision, the
District combined Regulation 7.18 and 6.18 because the two regulations
have identical requirements and standards, only differing in
applicability. Originally, Regulation 7.18--Standards of Performance
for New Solvent Metal Cleaning Equipment was only for new facilities,
and Regulation 6.18--Standards of Performance for Existing Solvent
Metal Cleaning Equipment was only for existing facilities. In the
August 29, 2012, SIP revision, Regulation 6.18 has been updated with
wording changes to incorporate the two regulations, and the new title
is Regulation 6.18--Standards of Performance for Solvent Metal Cleaning
Equipment, which applies to all facilities. By combining the two
regulations, Regulation 7.18 is no longer needed and can be repealed.
Regulation 6.18 is also revised to remove requirements that are no
longer applicable. In 2000, Jefferson County prohibited the sale or use
of solvents with vapor pressures greater than 1 mm Hg in cold cleaners.
Regulation 6.18 was revised to remove requirements for solvents with
higher vapor pressures, since they are no longer sold or used in
Jefferson County.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Jefferson County Regulation 1.03--Abbreviations and Acronyms,
which had a state effective date of January 16, 2008; Regulation 1.08--
Administrative Procedures, in which version 13 had an effective date of
March 21, 2010; Regulation 1.11--Control of Open Burning; Regulation,
in which version 10 has an effective date of January 16, 2008; 1.19--
Administrative Hearings, which has an effective date of January 16,
2008; Regulation 6.18--Standards of Performance for Solvent Metal
Cleaning Equipment, which has an effective date of May 9, 2003; and
Regulations 6.43--Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Reduction
Requirements, in which version 5 has an effective date of February 15,
2006. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov
and/or in hard copy at the Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's August 29, 2012, SIP
revision, submitted on behalf of the District, because it is consistent
with the CAA. EPA believes that all of these proposed changes are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meet the regulatory
requirements pertaining to SIPs, including CAA section 110(l), since
these changes are administrative in nature and will not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

VI. 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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications 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 dioxide, Sulfur
dioxide, Reporting, Volatile organic compounds, and Recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: June 26, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-14399 Filed 7-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P