[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28184-28185]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0003]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Buckeye Partners, LP

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comments on
a request for special permit received from Buckeye Partners, LP
(Buckeye). The special permit request is seeking relief from compliance
with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations.
At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will review the
comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation to grant
or deny the special permit request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
June 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Note: There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to give confidential
treatment to information you give to the Agency by taking the following
steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission
containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along with the
original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI
deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit request from
Buckeye seeking a waiver from portions of the requirements of 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 195.116: Valves; 195.118: Fittings;
195.228: Welds and welding inspection: Standards of acceptability;
195.230: Welds: Repair or removal of defects; and 195.234: Welds:
Nondestructive testing. This special permit is being requested in lieu
of replacement of valves, fittings, and girth welds for a pipeline
special permit segment consisting of approximately 2,600 feet of
12.750-inch diameter pipeline and approximately 100 feet of 8.625-inch
diameter pipeline. This pipeline special permit segment was not
designed, pressure tested, and constructed in accordance with 49 CFR
part 195. The special permit was requested by Buckeye for the following
reasons:
     The special permit valves were not factory pressure tested
to meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 195.116.
     The fittings were not manufactured to the standards
referenced in 49 CFR 195.118.
     The welding procedures, welding, nondestructive testing,
and weld repairs for the pipeline girth welds for the pipe, valves and
fittings were not originally performed during construction in
accordance with 49 CFR 195.228, 195.230, and 195.234.
    Buckeye has proposed special permit conditions to remediate any
pipeline safety issues with the original installation of the special
permit segment. The location of this proposed special permit segment is
in Buckeye's Tampa North Terminal in Hillsborough County, Florida. The
Buckeye pipeline special permit segment consists of the following:
     The special permit segment includes approximately 2,600
feet of 12.750-inch diameter, steel pipe strength of 52,000 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) with a wall thickness of 0.375 inches, and
approximately 100 feet of 8.625-inch diameter, steel pipe strength of
52,000 psig with a wall thickness of 0.322 inches.
     The special permit segment is above ground and has been
coated with a coating to provide atmospheric corrosion protection.
     The special permit segment will have a maximum operating
pressure of 220 psig.
     The special permit segment was constructed between 2018
and 2020.
     The special permit segment is situated within the Tampa
North Terminal tank dike, with a 500-foot section of 12.750-inch
diameter piping located outside of dike containment.
    The special permit request, proposed special permit with
conditions, and Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the above
listed Buckeye pipeline segments are available for review and public
comments in Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0003. PHMSA invites interested
persons to review and submit comments on the special permit request and
DEA in the docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit is granted.
Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit request, PHMSA will
evaluate all comments received on or before the comments closing date.
Comments received after the closing

date will be evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring
additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment
it receives in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit
request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2021, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2021-10970 Filed 5-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31839-31843]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13438]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0188]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Sault Sainte Marie Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is adding regulations requiring safety zones
in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. This rule will
establish safety zones that will restrict vessels from certain portions
of water areas within the Sector Sault Sainte Marie Captain of the Port
zone. These safety zones are necessary to protect spectators,
participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with various
maritime events.

DATES: This rule July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2011-0188 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0188 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available for
inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail BMC Gregory Ford, U.S. Coast Guard,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 18, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events requiring safety zones in
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal
Register (76 FR 21677). We received 0 public submissions commenting on
this rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    This rule will add 33 CFR 165.918 Safety Zones; Annual Events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
zone. Many of these events recur in the same location on or about the
same date each year. Also, these events pose hazards to the public.
Such hazards include obstructions to navigable channels, explosive
dangers associated with fireworks, debris falling into the water, and
general congestion of waterways. To minimize these and other hazards,
this rule will establish twenty safety zones, each related to a
specific recurring marine event.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 0 public submissions commenting on this
rule.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule and its associated safety zones are necessary to ensure
the safety of vessels and people during each of the annual marine
events discussed herein. Although this rule will remain in effect year
round, the safety zones will be enforced only immediately before,
during, and after each corresponding event.
    The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie will notify the public
when these safety zones will be enforced. In keeping with 33 CFR
165.7(a), the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie will use all
appropriate means to notify the affected

segments of the public. This will include, as practicable, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the
Port will, as practicable, issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
notifying the public when any enforcement period is cancelled.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within each of the below
safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sault Sainte Marie or his or her designated representative. All persons
and vessels permitted to enter one of the safety zones established by
this rule shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain
of the Port or the designated representative. The Captain of the Port
or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 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. We conclude that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones
created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a
relatively short time. Also, each safety zone is designed to minimize
its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, each safety zone has been
designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the
waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions on
vessel movement within any particular area are expected to be minimal.
Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through
each safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port. On the
whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners
from the activation of these safety zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0
public submissions commenting on the impact to small entities by this
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed. This
rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small
entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or
anchor in any one of the below established safety zones while the
safety zone is being enforced. Each of the safety zones, with one
exception, will be in effect only once per year. Furthermore, these
safety zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around
each zone. Moreover, vessels will be allowed to pass through each zone
at the discretion of the Captain of the Port.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0
public submissions commenting on the proposed rule.

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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0
public submissions commenting on the proposed rule. There have been no
changes made to the rule as proposed.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie
zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0
public submissions commenting on the proposed rule. There have been no
changes made to the rule as proposed.

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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. On April 18, 2011, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety
Zones; Annual Events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Sault Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The
Coast Guard received 0 public submissions commenting on the proposed
rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones;
Annual Events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast
Guard received 0 public submissions commenting on the proposed rule.
There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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. On April 18, 2011,
the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events requiring safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal Register
(76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0 public submissions commenting
on the proposed rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as
proposed.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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. On April 18, 2011, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zones;
Annual Events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal Register (76 FR 21677). The Coast
Guard received 0 public submissions commenting on the proposed rule.
There have been no changes made to the rule as proposed.

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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. On April 18, 2011,
the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events requiring safety zones in the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone, in the Federal Register
(76 FR 21677). The Coast Guard received 0 public submissions commenting
on the proposed rule. There have been no changes made to the rule as
proposed.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.
A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C.
191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295,
116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.918 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.918  Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated safety zones:
    (1) Marquette Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Marquette, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Marquette Harbor within
a 1000-foot radius of the fireworks launch site, centered approximately
1250 feet south of the Mattson Park Bulkhead Dock and 450 feet east of
Ripley Rock, at position 46[deg]32'21.7''N, 087[deg]23'07.60''W [DATUM:
NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (2) Munising Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Munising, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of South Bay within a 600-
foot radius from the fireworks launch site at the end of the Munising
City Dock, centered in position: 46[deg]24'50.08''N,
086[deg]39'08.52''W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. on July 5. If the July 4
fireworks are cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section
will be enforced on July 5 from 9 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. on July 6.
    (3) Grand Marais Splash-In; Grand Marais, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters within the southern portion
of West Bay bound to the north by a line beginning approximately 175
feet south-southeast of the Lake Street Boat Launch, extending 5280
feet to the east on a true bearing of 079 degrees. The eastern boundary
will then be formed by a line drawn to the shoreline on a true bearing
of 170 degrees. The western and southern boundaries of the zone will be
bound by the shoreline of West Bay. The coordinates for this zone are
as follows: 46[deg]40'22.32'' N, 085[deg]59'00.66'' W,

46[deg]40'32.04'' N, 085[deg]57'46.14'' W, and 46[deg]40'19.68'' N,
085[deg]57'43.08'' W [DATUM: NAD 83], with the West Bay shoreline
forming the South and West boundaries of the zone.
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on the second to last Saturday
in June from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m.
    (4) Sault Sainte Marie Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Sault
Sainte Marie, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of the St. Marys River
within a 750-foot radius around the eastern portion of the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers Soo Locks North East Pier, centered in position:
46[deg]30'19.66'' N, 084[deg]20'31.61'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (5) St. Ignace Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; St. Ignace,
MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of East Moran Bay within a
700-foot radius from the fireworks launch site at the end of the Arnold
Transit Mill Slip, centered in position: 45[deg]52'24.62'' N,
084[deg]43'18.13'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (6) Mackinac Island Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Mackinac
Island, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Huron within a 500-
foot radius of the fireworks launch site, centered approximately 1000
yards west of Round Island Passage Light, at position 45[deg]50'34.92''
N, 084[deg]37'38.16'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (7) Festivals of Fireworks Celebration Fireworks; St. Ignace, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of East Moran Bay within a
700-foot radius from the fireworks launch site at the end of the Arnold
Transit Mill Slip, centered in position: 45[deg]52'24.62'' N,
084[deg]43'18.13'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on every Saturday following the 4th of July until the second
Sunday in September from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. If the fireworks are
cancelled on Saturday due to inclement weather, then this section will
be enforced on Sunday from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m.
    (8) Canada Day Celebration Fireworks; Sault Sainte Marie, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of the St. Marys River
within a 1200-foot radius from the fireworks launch site, centered
approximately 160 yards north of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Soo
Locks North East Pier, at position 46[deg]30'20.40'' N,
084[deg]20'17.64'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 1 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 1 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 2 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (9) Jordan Valley Freedom Festival Fireworks; East Jordan, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix, near
the City of East Jordan, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot
radius from the fireworks launch site in position 45[deg]09'18'' N,
085[deg]07'48'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on Saturday of the third weekend
of June from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (10) National Cherry Festival Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks;
Traverse City, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of the West Arm of Grand
Traverse Bay within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from
the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44[deg]46'12''
N, 085[deg]37'06'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (11) Harbor Springs Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Harbor
Springs, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan and Harbor
Springs Harbor within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from
the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45[deg]25'30''
N, 084[deg]59'06'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (12) Bay Harbor Yacht Club Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks;
Petoskey, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan and Bay
Harbor Lake within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the
fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 45[deg]21'50'' N,
085[deg]01'37'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 3 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 3 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (13) Petoskey Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Petoskey, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Michigan and
Petoskey Harbor, in the vicinity of Bay Front Park, within the arc of a
circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located
in position 45[deg]22'40'' N, 084[deg]57'30'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (14) Boyne City Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks; Boyne City,
MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the
vicinity of Veterans Park, within the arc of a circle with a 1400-foot
radius from the fireworks launch site located in position
45[deg]13'30'' N, 085[deg]01'40'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (15) National Cherry Festival Air Show; Traverse City, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of the West Arm of Grand
Traverse Bay bounded by a line drawn from 44[deg]46'48'' N,
085[deg]38'18'' W, then southeast to 44[deg]46'30'' N, 085[deg]35'30''
W, then southwest to 44[deg]46'00'' N, 085[deg]35'48'' W, then
northwest to 44[deg]46'30'' N, 085[deg]38'30'' W, then back to the
point of origin [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
of the first complete weekend of July from noon until 4 p.m.
    (16) National Cherry Festival Finale Fireworks; Traverse City, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters and adjacent shoreline of
the West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay within the arc of a circle with a
1000-foot radius from the

fireworks launch site located on a barge in position 44[deg]46'12'' N,
085[deg]37'06'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on the second Saturday of July
from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (17) Charlevoix Venetian Festival Friday Night Fireworks;
Charlevoix, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Charlevoix, in the
vicinity of Depot Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot
radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in position
45[deg]19'08'' N, 085[deg]14'18'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on Friday of the fourth weekend
of July from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (18) Charlevoix Venetian Festival Saturday Night Fireworks;
Charlevoix, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Round Lake within the
arc of a circle with a 300- foot radius from the fireworks launch site
located on a barge in position 45[deg]19'03'' N, 085[deg]15'18'' W
[DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on Saturday of the fourth
weekend of July from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (19) Elk Rapids Harbor Days Fireworks; Elk Rapids, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Grand Traverse Bay, in
the vicinity of Edward G. Grace Memorial Park, within the arc of a
circle with a 1000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located
in position 44[deg]53'58'' N, 085[deg]25'04'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (ii) Enforcement Period. Each year on the first Saturday of August
from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (20) Alpena Fourth of July Celebration Fireworks, Alpena, MI:
    (i) Location. All U.S. navigable waters of Lake Huron within an
800-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located near the end of
Mason Street, South of State Avenue, at position 45[deg]02'42'' N,
083[deg]26'48'' W (NAD 83).
    (ii) Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be enforced each
year on July 4 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. If the July 4 fireworks are
cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced
July 5 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie to monitor these safety zones, permit entry into these
safety zones, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels
within these safety zones, or take other actions authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
    Public vessel means a vessel owned, chartered, or operated by the
United States or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
any of the safety zones listed in this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie, or a
designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated
representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (3) When a safety zone established by this section is being
enforced, all vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the
Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated representative to enter, move
within, or exit that safety zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    (d) Suspension of Enforcement. If the event concludes earlier than
scheduled, the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated
representative will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the
public that enforcement of the respective safety zone is suspended.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie or a designated representative may, at his or her discretion,
waive any of the requirements of this section, upon finding that
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of safety or environmental safety.

    Dated: May 17, 2011.
G.J. Paitl,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Sector Sault
Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2011-13438 Filed 6-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 69788]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 84 FR 67987,
December 12, 2019.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Tuesday, December
17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
December 17, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. has been changed to Tuesday, December
17, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 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: December 16, 2019.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27463 Filed 12-17-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26892-26898]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11429]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132; FRL-9151-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction
Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially
disapprove a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in a
letter dated January 23, 2006 (the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal).
This SIP submittal concerns revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules, Subchapter A General
Rules; and Subchapter F Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance,
Startup, and Shutdown Activities. This action proposes approval of
those portions of the rule that are consistent with the Clean Air Act
(the Act), and disapproval of those portions of the rule that are
inconsistent with the Act. We are proposing disapproval of provisions
that provide for an affirmative defense against civil penalties for
excess emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities. A disapproval of these provisions means that an affirmative
defense is not available in the federally approved SIP for violations
due to excess emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities. This action is in accordance with section 110 of
the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0132, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2006-0132. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available

either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at
the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment: TCEQ, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(214) 665-7263, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Background
    A. What actions are we proposing?
    B. What documents did we use in our evaluation of the January
23, 2006, SIP submittal?
    C. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking action?
    D. Why are we proposing approval of portions of the January 23,
2006 SIP submittal?
    E. Why are we proposing disapproval of sections 101.222(h),
101.222(i), and 101.222(j) of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal?
    F. What happens if Texas continues to implement section
101.222(h) as a State law?
II. Proposed Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What actions are we proposing?

    We are proposing to approve revisions to 30 TAC, General Air
Quality Rule 101, Subchapter A General Rules; and Subchapter F
Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown
Activities of the January 23, 2006 submittal as revisions to the
federally-approved SIP. Specifically, we are proposing to approve
Subchapter A, section 101.1 (Definitions); and Subchapter F, sections
101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements),
101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements), 101.221 (Operational Requirements),
101.222(a) through (g) (Demonstrations), and 101.223 (Actions to Reduce
Excessive Emissions) into the Texas SIP.
    We are also proposing to disapprove sections 101.222(h) (Planned
Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning
effective date of permit applications), and 101.222(j) (concerning
processing of permit applications) of the January 23, 2006 submittal.
We are proposing disapproval of these provisions because they provide
for an affirmative defense against civil penalties for excess emissions
during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities. A
disapproval of these provisions means that an affirmative defense is
not available for violations due to excess emissions during planned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities in the federally-approved
SIP.
    Based on our review of the January 23, 2006 submittal, we believe
that sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j) are severable
from, and independent of, the remainder of the submittal. Therefore,
our disapproval of sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j), and
approval of the remainder of the January 23, 2006 submittal, will not
affect the implementation of the sections being approved today for
inclusion in the SIP. See section 20 of our Technical Support Document
(TSD) prepared in conjunction with this document for more information.

B. What documents did we use in our evaluation of the January 23, 2006,
SIP submittal?

    The EPA's interpretation of the Act as it applies to excess
emissions occurring during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction is set forth in the following documents: A memorandum dated
September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation, entitled ``Policy on Excess Emissions
During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' (1982
Policy); EPA's clarification to the above policy memorandum dated
February 15, 1983, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (1983 Policy); EPA's policy memorandum
reaffirming and supplementing the above policy, dated September 20,
1999, from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, entitled ``State Implementation Plans: Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown''
(1999 Policy); EPA's final rule for Utah's sulfur dioxide control
strategy (Kennecott Copper), April 27, 1977 (42 FR 21472); EPA's final
rule for Idaho's sulfur dioxide control strategy, November 8, 1977 (42
FR 58171); and the latest clarification of EPA's policy issued on
December 5, 2001 (2001 Policy). See the policy or clarification of
policy at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html (URL dating July 22,
2008). The EPA's interpretation that the Act prohibits the inclusion in
SIPs of automatic exemptions from emission limitations for sources in
certain startup, shutdown, or malfunction situations was upheld by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Michigan
Department Of Environmental Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir.
2000).

C. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking action?

    On March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16129), we granted limited approval to SIP
revisions to Chapter 101, Subchapter A and Subchapter F, including
sections 101.221 (Operational Requirements), 101.222 (Demonstrations),
and 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions). The rules
concerned reporting and recordkeeping requirements and enforcement
actions for excess emissions during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and
malfunction activities. We granted limited rather than full approval of
that submission because we found sections 101.222(c) and (e) were
ambiguous because they could be interpreted to provide an exemption
from SIP permitting requirements or an affirmative defense for certain
scheduled maintenance activities. See also our May 9, 2005 (70 FR
24348) proposal, and August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50205) final rule granting
limited approval to an extension of the expiration dates for sections
101.221, 101.222 and 101.223 to June 30, 2006. As discussed below,
however, the approved provisions, 30 TAC 101.221, 101.222, and 101.223
have expired by their own terms, are no longer part of the Texas SIP,
and therefore are no longer enforceable under the SIP.
    On January 26, 2006 we received a letter, dated January 23, 2006,
from the Chairman of the TCEQ requesting EPA review and approve
revisions to 30

TAC, General Air Quality Rule 101, Subchapter A General Rules; and
Subchapter F Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and
Shutdown Activities. The January 23, 2006 submittal included revised 30
TAC sections 101.1 (Definitions), 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements), 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance,
Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements), and
new sections 101.221 (Operational Requirements), 101.222
(Demonstrations), and 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions).
The previous version of sections 101.221, 101.222, and 101.223 approved
into the SIP in 2005 expired from the Texas SIP, by their own terms, on
June 30, 2006. On March 23, 2006, we determined the January 23, 2006
submittal administratively complete as reflected in a letter to the
Chairman of the TCEQ. This administrative completeness letter is a part
of the docket and available for public review. On February 8, 2007, EPA
met with TCEQ to discuss issues related to the January 23, 2006 SIP
submittal. TCEQ responded to our questions in a letter dated April 17,
2007 from John F. Steib, Jr, Deputy Director, TCEQ Office of Compliance
and Enforcement to John Blevins, Director EPA Compliance Assurance and
Enforcement Division (April 17, 2007 letter). The April 17, 2007 letter
is included in the docket for this action.
    We have reviewed the January 23, 2006 submittal including Texas'
response to our August 8, 2005 comment letter, and the April 17, 2007
letter and determined that, with the exception of the affirmative
defense provisions discussed below, the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal
is consistent with our interpretation of the Act. See section D of this
document for more information. We have determined that one of the
affirmative defense provisions, new section 101.222(h) (Planned
Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown Activity) of the January 23, 2006
submittal is inconsistent with the Act as interpreted in EPA policy and
guidance, and therefore we are proposing disapproval of the new section
101.222(h), and two related provisions new sections 101.222(i), and
101.222(j). See section E of this document for more information. If we
take final action to disapprove the new sections 101.222(h), (i) and
(j), no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan clocks will be started
under section 179(b) of the Act, because Texas did not submit these
provisions to satisfy a mandatory requirement of the Act. A final
disapproval action will mean that no affirmative defense against civil
penalties will exist in the federally approved SIP for violations that
occur during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities.

D. Why are we proposing approval of portions of the January 23, 2006
SIP submittal?

    The EPA interprets the Act such that all emissions in excess of
limits established in a SIP, including among other things, state
control strategies and New Source Review SIP permits, are violations of
the applicable emission limitation because excess emissions have the
potential to interfere with attainment and maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress,
state control strategies, or with the protection of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. However, EPA recognizes
that imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions,
startups or shutdowns caused by circumstances entirely beyond the
control of the owner or operator may not be appropriate. The EPA has
provided guidance on two approaches States may use in addressing such
excess emissions: enforcement discretion and affirmative defense to
civil penalties. Under an enforcement discretion approach, the State
(or another entity, such as EPA, seeking to enforce a violation of the
SIP) may consider the circumstances surrounding the event in
determining whether to pursue enforcement. Under the affirmative
defense approach, the State may establish an affirmative defense that
may be raised in the context of an enforcement proceeding. In an
enforcement action, the defendant may raise a response or defense in an
action for civil penalties, regarding which the defendant has the
burden to prove that certain criteria have been met. See page 2 of the
attachment to the 1999 Policy.
    Neither approach may waive reporting requirements for the
violation. States are not required to provide an affirmative defense
approach, but if they choose to do so, EPA will evaluate the State's
SIP rules for consistency with the Act as interpreted in our policy and
guidance documents listed in section B above.
    We are proposing to approve Subchapter A, revised section 101.1
(Definitions); and Subchapter F, revised sections 101.201 (Emissions
Event Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements) and 101.211 (Scheduled
Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements), and new sections 101.221 (Operational Requirements),
101.222 (a) through (g) (Demonstrations), and 101.223 (Actions to
Reduce Excessive Emissions), into the Texas SIP. TCEQ revised
definitions in Subchapter A, section 101.1 as needed to implement
Subchapter F and to implement other legislative changes. The changes
define ``planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown'' and ``unplanned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown'' activities; ``excess opacity
event;'' and ``emissions event;'' and replace the terms ``facility''
and ``site'' with ``regulated entity.'' The submittal also includes
several revisions to the SIP definition of ``reportable quantity.'' See
section 9 of the TSD for more information. We believe that the
revisions to section 101.1 will provide for consistency among
subchapters A and F, and will facilitate implementation of the rule.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the submitted revisions to
section 101.1. Although we are proposing to approve all of the changes
to the definitions section 101.1, including the definition for
``planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown,'' as we have stated we are
proposing to disapprove the regulatory provisions that would provide an
affirmative defense for violations during these events. Our approval of
the submitted definition ``planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown''
insures that the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for these
events will be appropriately applied.
    Revisions to sections 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements) relate to how and where to report excess
emission events. The revisions make numerous changes to the terms of
the currently approved SIP, including adding requirements to file
initial notifications and final reports with the local air pollution
agencies with jurisdiction and to include TCEQ's regulated entity
number with the report; modifying the requirement to report by facility
to instead require reporting by emission point; allowing reporting
without speciation of the pollutants emitted for events that have a
reportable quantity less than 100 pounds or amounts less than ten
pounds per 24 hours. Texas made a number of other minor revisions to
clarify reporting requirements that are described in section 10 of the
TSD. We believe that these other revisions to the reporting
requirements will facilitate implementation of the rule by clarifying
the existing reporting requirements and establishing a new requirement
that

local air pollution authorities be informed of emissions events. See
section 10 of the TSD for more information. Therefore, we are proposing
to approve the revisions to section 101.201.
    Revisions to 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements). This section of the SIP was
last approved on March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16129) and had no expiration
date. See Table II of the TSD. This section describes the requirements
for owners and operator to make an initial notification at least 10
days prior to a scheduled maintenance, startup or shutdown activity and
the requirements to provide a final report within 2 weeks after the
event. Texas revised the rules to clarify that, if during a scheduled
maintenance activity additional maintenance is required that results in
unanticipated emissions, and that the maintenance was unforeseeable and
requires immediate corrective action to avoid a malfunction, then the
event is considered an unplanned maintenance activity or an upset
depending on the reasons. This change is relevant to the affirmative
defense provisions in section 101.222 which require different criteria
to be demonstrated in order to assert the affirmative defense for
upsets and unplanned maintenance emission events versus planned
maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities. Another change to
section 101.211 requires pre-reporting of the expected duration of any
maintenance, startup or shutdown activity. Section 101.211(f) adopts
the requirement for annual reporting of emissions resulting from
scheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities by a regulated
entity. For entities subject to emission inventory (EI) reporting, the
annual emissions event report must be submitted with the EI report. The
annual emissions event report must include the total number of
reportable and non-reportable emissions events and quantity of
emissions experienced at the regulated entity. Major sources statewide
and minor sources in nonattainment, maintenance, early action compact
areas, and Nueces and San Patricio Counties are subject to the annual
emissions event reporting requirements. See section 7 of the TSD for
more information. These revisions to section 101.211 will provide for
reporting and recordkeeping provisions associated with scheduled
maintenance, startup, and shutdown events, and will facilitate tracking
of these events. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the revisions
to section 101.211. If our proposed approval of these reporting
requirements for scheduled maintenance, startup and shutdown events is
finalized, it only means that facilities will need to make these
required notifications. If we finalize our proposed disapproval of
section 101.222(h), an affirmative defense will not be available for
violations due to excess emissions during planned maintenance, startup,
or shutdown activities.
    New Section 101.221 (Operational Requirements) discusses the
requirement to maintain air pollution equipment in good working order.
A previous version of this section was part of the SIP but that
provision expired. This new section is important because it provides
the requirement that air pollution abatement equipment must be
maintained and in good working order. Paragraph (d) in Section 101.221
provides that the commission may exempt sources from control
requirements when there is a lack of technical knowledge. The new
section 101.221 also clarifies that no exemptions can be authorized by
the commission for any federal requirements to maintain air pollution
control equipment, including requirements such as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) or National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). In its letter of April 17, 2007,
Texas confirmed that the term ``federal requirements'' includes any
requirement in the federally-approved SIP. Thus, the State interprets
this provision not to apply where the control requirement that has been
approved as part of the SIP. We believe that this interpretation is
critical to allowing us to approve the provision into the SIP. If the
TCEQ were to be allowed to exempt sources from control requirements
specified in the SIP, such action could undermine the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Thus, new section 101.221 is approvable only
because the State has clarified that it does not allow exemptions to be
provided for federal requirements including any requirement in the
federally-approved SIP. See sections 13 and 14 of the TSD for more
information.
    New section 101.222 (Demonstrations) provides an affirmative
defense for certain emission events. Emission events are defined in the
Texas rules as upsets that result in unauthorized emissions. Upsets are
defined in the Texas rules similar to the term malfunction used in
EPA's guidance. Section 101.222(a) provides criteria in 101.222(a)(1)
through 101.222(a)(6) to determine if an emission event is excessive.
If emission events are determined by the executive director to be
excessive, the source may not assert an affirmative defense under
sections 101.222(b) through 101.222(e). Section 101.222(b) adopts an
affirmative defense for non-excessive upset events. We have determined
that the affirmative defense provided by section 101.222(b) is
consistent with the interpretation of the Act set forth in our 1999
Policy for the following reasons: (1) The rule does not provide an
exemption from compliance with applicable emission limitations; (2) The
affirmative defense provided is limited to upset or malfunctions; (3)
The affirmative defense applies only to a judicial or administrative
enforcement action for a violation of applicable emission limitations;
(4) The defense applies only to civil penalties and cannot be asserted
for an enforcement action for injunctive relief. (5) The rule specifies
criteria, which must be met in order to assert the defense that are
consistent with those outlined in EPA's 1999 Policy; (6) The burden to
prove that the criteria have been met is on the owner or operator; (7)
A determination by TCEQ that the criteria have been met does not
constitute a waiver of liability for the violation; (8) Nothing in the
rule, including a determination by the TCEQ, would bar EPA or a citizen
suit enforcement action for the emission violation; (9) The affirmative
defense cannot be asserted where the unauthorized emissions cause or
contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS, PSD increments or to a
condition of air pollution; (10) The affirmative defense may not be
asserted against Federal performance or technology-based standards such
as NSPS or NESHAP; (11) The affirmative defense may not be asserted
where the Executive Director of TCEQ determines that the emissions
event is excessive under the criteria in section 101.222(a); and (12)
The emissions event must be reported to TCEQ under section 101.201 in
order for the owner or operator to assert the affirmative defense.
    Sections 101.222(c) and 101.222(e) provide a similar affirmative
defense for unplanned maintenance, startup or shutdown activities that
arise from sudden and unforeseeable events beyond the control of the
operator that require immediate corrective action to minimize or avoid
an upset or malfunction. This provision allows an affirmative defense
where the source or operator has the burden to prove that maintenance
activities undertaken arose from sudden or unforeseeable events beyond
the control of the operator, that

immediate corrective action was required to minimize or avoid an upset
or malfunction and that the criteria in section 101.222(c) or (e) have
been met. TCEQ provided supplemental information concerning sections
101.222(c) and (e) in a letter dated April 17, 2007 (included in the
docket for this action and available for public review) in response to
questions from EPA. The April 17, 2007 letter confirmed that TCEQ
interprets that unplanned maintenance events are ``functionally
equivalent to EPA's `malfunction' with regards to applicability of an
affirmative defense.'' See section 101.1(109)(B). Also see Tables III
and VIII of our TSD. The EPA agrees that TCEQ's treatment of
``unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity'' is
functionally equivalent to EPA's policy definition of malfunction. See
pages 1 and 2 of the April 17, 2007 letter for details. In addition,
the affirmative defense provided by TCEQ, including the criteria that a
source must prove in asserting the affirmative defense is consistent
with EPA's recommended policy approach for providing an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during a malfunction. Therefore, we are
proposing approval of 101.222(c) and (e) into the Texas SIP.
    As discussed elsewhere, we are proposing to disapprove section
101.222(h), which provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions
during periods of planned maintenance, startup or shutdown activities.
Sections 101.222(c)(1) and 101.222(e)(1) both include requirements for
facilities to report scheduled maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities. Our approval of sections 101.222(c)(1) and 101.222(e)(1)
only affirms a facility's requirement to provide notification of these
events. However, while we believe that it is appropriate for sources to
report such events, we do not believe that it is appropriate to provide
an affirmative defense for penalties for excess emissions during these
planned events. Because these events are planned, we believe that
sources should be able to comply with applicable emission limits during
these periods of time. As discussed elsewhere, if we finalize our
disapproval of section 101.222(h), an affirmative defense will not be
available for unauthorized emissions during these activities.
    Section 101.222(d) concerns excess opacity events due to an upset
or opacity events that are not emissions events. As noted previously,
emissions events are upsets that result in unauthorized emissions. See
101.1(28). Upsets are defined in the Texas rules similar to the term
malfunction used in EPA's guidance. See Table IV of our TSD. The
affirmative defense criteria in section 101.222(d) are specifically
tailored for opacity related activities and follow the pattern of the
criteria in 101.222(b). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the
criteria in the section 101.222(d) provision for the same reasons we
believe the criteria in 101.222(b) are consistent with our
interpretation of the Act as outlined in our 1999 Policy, and we are
proposing to approve section 101.222(d). See Table VII of our TSD for
more information.
    We are proposing to approve section 101.222(f) (Obligations)
because this section provides that an affirmative defense cannot apply
to violations of federally promulgated performance or technology-based
standards, such as those found in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63. This is
consistent with EPA's interpretation of the Act as provided in the 1999
Policy at page 3.
    New Section 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions)
provides for a corrective action plan and written notification
concerning excessive emission events. This section will enhance the
Texas SIP by providing a clear requirement for facilities determined to
have excessive emission events to take necessary corrective actions to
reduce the future occurrence of such events.
    In summary, we are proposing approval of 30 TAC, General Air
Quality Rule 101, Subchapter A, revised section 101.1 (Definitions);
and Subchapter F, revised sections 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements) and 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance,
Startup, and Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements), and
new sections 101.221 (Operational Requirements), 101.222
(Demonstrations, except 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j)), and
101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions) into the Texas SIP.

E. Why are we proposing disapproval of sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i),
and 101.222(j) of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal?

    New Section 101.222(h) provides a temporary affirmative defense for
planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity emissions, which are
currently unauthorized, meet certain criteria, and have been reported
in accordance with section 101.211. See section 101.1(109) or Table III
of our TSD for the definition of unplanned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activity.
    This section (101.222(h)) also sets forth a time table for an owner
or operator to file a permit application to authorize startup,
shutdown, and maintenance activities from routine or normal operations
based on facility's SIC code. The affirmative defense for planned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities expires the earlier of one
year after the application deadlines in the rule or upon issuance or
denial of a permit to authorize planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities. We believe that section 101.222(h) (Planned
Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown Activity) is inconsistent with the
Act as interpreted in EPA's long-standing national policy on excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunction
activities and in actions taken by EPA regarding excess-emissions-
related SIP revisions for other states; therefore, we are proposing
disapproval of the provision. If we finalize the disapproval, this
provision would not be included as part of the Texas SIP.
    Section 101.222(h) provides an affirmative defense for planned
maintenance activities. It is EPA's long-standing position expressed in
guidance documents and other rulemakings that planned maintenance
activities are predictable events that are subject to planning to
minimize releases, unlike malfunctions or upsets, which are sudden,
unavoidable or beyond the control of the owner or operator. Thus,
States should require sources to comply with the applicable emission
limits during these activities. The EPA's interpretation of section 110
of the Act and related policies allows an affirmative defense to be
asserted against civil penalties in an enforcement action for excess
emissions activities which are sudden, unavoidable or caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the owner or operator and where
emissions control systems may not be consistently effective, such as
during startup or shutdown periods.\1\ However, EPA has determined that
it is inappropriate to provide an affirmative defense for excess
emissions resulting from planned maintenance. The source or operator
should be able to plan maintenance that might otherwise lead to excess
emissions to coincide with maintenance of production equipment or other
facility shutdowns. Thus, EPA

did not provide for an affirmative defense during maintenance
activities in the 1999 Policy. Because these events can be planned and
because control equipment can be consistently effective during
maintenance, EPA does not believe it is appropriate under the Act to
allow an affirmative defense for any excess emissions during
maintenance activities; any such events should be addressed only
through the exercise of enforcement discretion. Also see 72 FR 5238
published February 5, 2007. We expressed our concern about providing an
affirmative defense to section 101.222(h) related activities in our
August 8, 2005 comment letter to TCEQ (Comment 16); however,
TCEQ did not incorporate our comment in its final adoption of the rule
that was submitted to EPA. We have placed our August 8, 2005 comment
letter to TCEQ in the docket where it is available for public review.
Also, see April 27, 1977 (42 FR 21472); November 8, 1977 (42 FR 58171);
and August 23, 2000 (65 FR 51412). For the above reasons, we are
proposing to disapprove section 101.222(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We also note that we generally believe that for planned
startup and shutdown events, most sources should be able to comply
with applicable emission limitations. However, for those sources and
source categories where such compliance is not possible, the State
should develop alternative, applicable emission limits for such
events, which they can consider in SIPs demonstrating attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS, rather than establishing an affirmative
defense for such emission events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 101.222(i) concerns the scheduling and applicable effective
dates for permit applications submitted to TCEQ requesting that
unauthorized emissions associated with the planned maintenance,
startup, or shutdown activities be permitted. Since section 101.222(i)
is not severable from section 101.222(h), which we are proposing to
disapprove, we are proposing to disapprove section 101.222(i), as well.
    Section 101.222(j) concerns processing of permit applications
referenced in 101.222(h), and provides the Executive Director with the
authority to process, review, and permit unauthorized emissions from
planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities. We explained our
reasons for proposing to disapprove section 101.222(h) above. Since
section 101.222(j) is not severable from section 101.222(h), which we
are proposing to disapprove, we are proposing to disapprove section
101.222(j), as well.
    Based on our review of the January 23, 2006 submittal, we believe
our disapproval of the submitted new sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i),
and 101.222(j), which would result in such provisions not being
included in the approved SIP, does not change the meaning or stringency
of the portions of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal that we are
approving and that would become a part of the federally enforceable
SIP. Therefore, sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j) are
severable from the remaining sections of the SIP and can be
disapproved. See section 20 of our TSD for more information.

F. What happens if Texas continues to implement section 101.222(h) as a
State law?

    Historically, emissions from startup, shutdown and maintenance
activities were not included in Texas air permits or authorizations;
instead, such emissions were subject to the State's emission events
rules. The EPA expects all emissions, including those emissions during
startup, shutdown and maintenance activities, to be addressed in
permits issued under or authorizations provided by the approved SIP.
Texas chose to adopt a schedule for sources to apply for and the State
to issue air permits to include emissions due to planned maintenance,
startup, or shutdown. Permit provisions addressing emission limitations
for planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities cannot
interfere with compliance with applicable SIP requirements. For
example, a permit rule cannot alter or provide relief from the emission
limits set forth in 30 TAC Chapter 115 for Volatile Organic Compounds
or Chapter 117 for Oxides of Nitrogen.
    Texas adopted this schedule through rulemaking in the new section
101.222(h), which EPA has proposed to disapprove because it provides an
affirmative defense for facilities with permits that do not include
emission limitations for these types of activities during the
transition period. Under the State rule, which EPA has proposed not be
approved into the SIP, once a facility receives a new federally
enforceable permit or authorization that includes emission limitations
for these activities, an affirmative defense is no longer available. If
the permittee has emissions that exceed an emission limit in a SIP
permit and those emissions are due to planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities that had not been considered in the original
issuance of the permit to a facility, this exceedance can still be a
violation of the SIP. As noted previously, these permits cannot be
inconsistent with the applicable SIP.
    Thus, if EPA takes final action to disapprove section 101.222(h),
and Texas continues to implement the new section 101.222(h) as a State
law, there will be a ``gap'' between State law and Federal law in the
EPA-approved Texas SIP. The federally-approved SIP will not provide an
affirmative defense for planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities, and EPA or other parties could seek enforcement of the
federally-approved limits in federal court. In addition, as stated
above, any alternative limits established through the permitting
process cannot be inconsistent with the applicable SIP.
    We want to make it clear that if we finalize this rulemaking
action, sources subject to the Chapter 101 Emission Events rules should
be aware of the gap between the EPA-approved SIP and the revised State
rules for excess emissions from such activities. The current EPA-
approved SIP does not provide for an affirmative defense to civil
penalties in an EPA or citizen suit enforcement action for an
exceedance of a SIP requirement. If we finalize disapproval of sections
101.222(h), 101.222(i) and 101.222(j), the EPA-approved SIP will
provide an affirmative defense only for unplanned activities and will
continue to not provide an affirmative defense to a federal enforcement
action for violation of a SIP requirement due to planned activities.
    The EPA considers any emissions not authorized under the Act or the
regulations promulgated or approved thereunder (e.g., exceedance of an
emission limitation or other applicable SIP requirement) a violation.
Any such unauthorized emissions should be reported as a deviation under
title V reporting and/or other applicable reporting requirements. Under
the Act, EPA and citizens may enforce the EPA-approved SIP as federal
law. Thus, as provided above, regulated sources remain subject to the
requirements of the EPA-approved SIP and subject to potential
enforcement for violations of the SIP during a ``SIP gap.'' See EPA's
Revised Guidance on Enforcement During Pending SIP Revisions, dated
March 1, 1991. A source must comply with the EPA-approved SIP until and
unless it is revised. See Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975).

II. Proposed Action

    Today, we are proposing to approve into the Texas SIP the following
provisions of 30 TAC General Air Quality Rule 101 as submitted on
January 23, 2006:

Subchapter A

    Revised section 101.1 (Definitions); and

Subchapter F

    Revised Section 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements),
    Revised Section 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and
Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements),
    New Section 101.221 (Operational Requirements),

    New Section 101.222 (Demonstrations), except 101.222(h),
101.222(i), and 101.222(j)),
    New Section 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions).
    We are also proposing to disapprove sections 101.222(h) (Planned
Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning
effective date of permit applications), and 101.222(j) (concerning
processing of permit applications) into Texas SIP. The EPA is proposing
to find that these 3 sections (101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j))
are not severable from each other.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). If a portion of the plan revision
does not meet all the applicable requirements of this chapter and
Federal regulations, the Administrator may then disapprove portions of
the plan revision in part that does not meet the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state
choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
proposed action, in part, approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and, in part, disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements; and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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;
     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); and
     This rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-11429 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 24695-24696]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0093; FRL-8063-7]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for Establishment of
Regulations for Residues of Mesotrione in or on Various Food/Feed
Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
mesotrione in or on flax, millet, berry group, and cranberry
commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0093 and pesticide petition number (PP)
6F7023, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation
will remain the same after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0093. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for this docket facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stone, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; phone number:
(703) 305-7391; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).

     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or amendment of regulations in
40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
food commodities. EPA has determined that this pesticide petition
contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA
section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting
of the pesticide petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA
rules on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov. To locate this information on the home page

of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 6F7023. Syngenta Crop Protection, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC
27409, proposes to establish tolerances for residues of the herbicide
mesotrione in or on food/feed commodities flax, meal/seed at 0.01 parts
per million (ppm); millet, forage/grain at 0.01 ppm; millet, hay/straw
at 0.02 ppm; Berry group and cranberry at 0.01 ppm. Practical and
specific analytical method RAM 366/01 (MRID 45651803) is available for
detecting and measuring the level of mesotrione in or one various crop
commodities.

List of Subjects

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

    Dated: April 13, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-6298 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S