[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12522-12527]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05767]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0843; FRL-9975-28-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve elements
of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Texas
for the 2012 primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This submittal addresses
how the existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or
i-SIP). This i-SIP ensures that the Texas SIP is adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0843, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst, (214) 665-
6454, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' mean EPA.

I. Background

    Below is a short discussion of the background of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS addressed in this notice. For more information,
please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) and EPA website http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.
    EPA has regulated PM since 1971, when we published the first NAAQS
for PM (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). Most recently, by notice dated
January 15, 2013, following a periodic review of the NAAQS for
PM2.5, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ and retained the secondary PM2.5
annual standard of 15 [micro]g/m\3\ as well as the 24-hour
PM2.5 primary and secondary standards of 35 [micro]g/m\3\
(78 FR 3086, December 14, 2012). The primary NAAQS is designed to
protect human health, and the secondary NAAQS is designed to protect
the public welfare.
    Each state must submit an i-SIP within three years after the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
includes a list of specific elements the i-SIP must meet. On September
13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance addressing the i-SIP elements for
NAAQS.\1\ On December 1, 2015, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted an i-SIP revision to address the
revised NAAQS for 2012 PM2.5.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \2\ Additional information, including the history of the
priority pollutants, their levels forms and determination of
compliance; EPA approach for reviewing i-SIP submittal and EPA's
evaluation; the statute and regulatory citations in the Texas SIP
specific to the review the specific i-SIP applicable CAA and EPA
regulatory citations, Federal Register Notice citations for the
Texas SIP approvals; Texas minor New Source Review program and EPA
approval activities, and Texas' Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program can be found in the TSD.

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

II. EPA's Evaluation of Texas' NAAQS Infrastructure Submission

    Below is a summary of EPA's evaluation of the Texas i-SIP for each
applicable element of 110(a)(2)(A)-(M) \3\ that we are proposing to
approve. At this time, we are not proposing action on the visibility
protection sub-element under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Texas
provided a demonstration of how the existing Texas SIP meets the
requirements of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, on December 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A detailed discussion of our evaluation can be found in the
TSD for this action. The TSD can be accessed through
www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0465).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A). Emission limits and other control measures: The SIP must
include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means
or techniques, schedules for compliance and other related matters as
needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172,
not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section
110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or
emissions limits specifically for attaining the 2012
PM2.5. Those SIP provisions are due as part of each
state's attainment plan, and will be addressed separately from the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an
infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP
provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether
the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the
implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) provides the TCEQ with broad legal
authority. It may adopt emission standards and compliance schedules
applicable to regulated entities; emission standards and limitations
and any other measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of
national standards; and, enforce applicable laws, regulations,
standards and compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief. This
authority has been employed in the past to adopt and submit multiple
revisions to the Texas SIP. The approved SIP for Texas is documented at
40 CFR part 52.2270. TCEQ's air quality rules and standards are
codified at Title 30, Part 1 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).
Numerous parts of the regulations codified into 30 TAC necessary for
implementing and enforcing the NAAQS have been adopted into the SIP.
    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: The SIP must
provide for establishment and implementation of ambient air quality
monitors, collection and analysis of ambient air quality data, and
providing the data to EPA upon request.
    The TCAA provides the authority allowing the TCEQ to collect air
monitoring data, quality-assure the results, and report the data. TCEQ
maintains and operates a monitoring network to measure levels of
PM2.5, as well as other pollutants, in accordance with EPA
regulations specifying siting and monitoring requirements. All
monitoring data is measured using EPA approved methods and subject to
the EPA quality assurance requirements. TCEQ submits all required data
to us, following the EPA regulations. The Texas statewide monitoring
network was approved into the SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842, 10895),
was revised on March 7, 1978 (43 FR 9275), and it undergoes annual
review by EPA.\5\ In addition, TCEQ conducts a recurrent assessment of
its monitoring network every five years, as required by EPA rules. The
most recent of these 5-year monitoring network assessments was
conducted by TCEQ and approved by us in July of 2015.\6\ The TCEQ
website provides the monitor locations and posts past and current
concentrations of criteria pollutants measured by the State's network
of monitors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A copy of the 2017 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and
our approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    \6\ A copy of TCEQ's 2015 5-year ambient monitoring network
assessment and our response letter are included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
    \7\ See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/monops/sites/mon_sites.html and http://www17.tceq.texas.gov/tamis/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Program for enforcement of control measures: The SIP must
include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for
enforcement of the measures in paragraph (A) above; (2) a program for
the regulation of the modification and construction of stationary
sources as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide
permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the
major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated
as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We discuss these requirements in further detail in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted in (A), the TCAA provides
authority for the TCEQ, its Chairman, and its Executive Director to
enforce the requirements of the TCAA, and any regulations, permits, or
final compliance orders. These statutes also provide the TCEQ, its
Chairman, and its Executive Director with general enforcement powers.
Among other things, they can file lawsuits to compel compliance with
the statutes and regulations; commence civil actions; issue field
citations; conduct investigations of regulated entities; collect
criminal and civil penalties; develop and enforce rules and standards
related to protection of air quality; issue compliance orders; pursue
criminal prosecutions; investigate, enter into remediation agreements;
and issue emergency cease and desist orders. The TCAA also provides
additional enforcement authorities and funding mechanisms.
    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The SIP is required to include
measures to regulate construction and modification of stationary
sources to protect the NAAQS. The Texas minor NSR permitting
requirements are approved as part of the SIP.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the existing
Texas minor NSR program to the extent that it may be inconsistent
with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained
that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP
submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions
of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure
SIP for element C, program for enforcement of control measures,
(e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). The statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor
NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.
The Texas PSD portion of the SIP covers all NSR regulated pollutants as
well as the requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and has
been approved by EPA (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ We discuss this requirement further in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (D) Interstate and international transport: Under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), there are four sub-elements the SIP must include
relating to interstate transport. The first two of the four sub-
elements are provided in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and require
that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions to other
states which will (1) contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS, or (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS. The third and
fourth sub-elements are outlined in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
require that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions
to other states which will (1) interfere with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration or (2) interfere with measures to
protect visibility. We are not taking action on the visibility
protection sub-element at this time.
    Texas's SIP revision submittal evaluated the two sub-elements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by considering the following factors:
     An analysis of the most recent annual PM2.5
design values to determine

which areas near Texas violate, or are close to violating the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS;
     An analysis of the PM2.5 annual design value
trends in Texas to determine if the PM2.5 concentrations in
Texas are increasing or decreasing; and,
     An investigation of PM2.5 annual design value
trends in other states to determine whether PM2.5
concentrations in those areas are increasing or decreasing.
    This evaluation concluded that Texas will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
    On March 17, 2016 EPA issued a memorandum providing information on
the development and review of SIPs that address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (Memorandum).\11\
We used the information in the Memorandum and additional information
for our evaluation and came to the same conclusion as the State. In our
evaluation, as discussed in greater detail in the TSD, we identified
the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors (i.e.,
monitors), and then evaluated them to determine if Texas's emissions
could potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems
in 2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas. Specifically, the analysis identified (i) 17
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors in California, but
based on our evaluation of the local emissions, wind speed and
direction, topographical and meteorological conditions and seasonal
variations recorded at the monitors, we propose to conclude that
Texas's emissions do not significantly impact those receptors; (ii) one
potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho, but based on an
evaluation similar to that of the California monitors, we propose to
conclude that Texas's emissions do not significantly impact that
receptor; (iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, but we expect the air quality affecting it to improve to
the point where there will not be a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor by 2021 and, in any event, modeling from the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that Texas emissions are not impacting
it; (iv) the receptors in four counties in Florida have data gaps, and
as such, we initially treat those counties as potential nonattainment
or maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely that they will in fact be
nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021 and in any event, CSAPR
modeling indicates that Texas emissions do not impact them; and (v) all
receptors in Illinois have data gaps, and same as in (iv) we initially
treat them as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors, but it
is unlikely that they will in fact nonattainment or maintenance
receptors in 2021 because the most recent air quality data (from 2015
and 2016) indicates that all monitors in Illinois are likely attaining
the PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
revisions as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(i)(I) sub-elements that
Texas emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for any
other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport Good Neighbor
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the PSD sub-element of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), Texas stated, as noted in element C above, that it
has a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD program. As we have approved the
Texas comprehensive PSD program (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014), the
third sub-element, that the SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions to other states which will interfere with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration is met. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the portion of the State's i-SIP submission which
addresses the PSD sub-element of interstate transport. As noted above,
at this time we are not proposing action on the visibility protection
sub-element of interstate transport.
    A more detailed evaluation of how the SIP revision meets the first
three sub-elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) may be found in the
TSD.
    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that the SIP contain adequate
provisions insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of
sections 126 (relating to interstate pollution abatement) and 115
(relating to international pollution abatement). As stated in its
submittal, Texas meets the section 126 requirements as (1) it has a
fully approved PSD SIP (79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014), which includes
notification to neighboring air agencies of potential impacts from each
new or modified major source and (2) no source or sources have been
identified by the EPA as having any interstate impacts under section
126 in any pending action related to any air pollutant. Texas meets
section 115 requirements as there are no findings by EPA that Texas air
emissions affect other countries. Therefore, we propose to approve the
submitted revision pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight:
The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that
the state (and other entities within the state responsible for
implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there
are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) requirements
relating to state boards; and (3) necessary assurances that the state
has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan
provision for which it relies on local governments or other entities to
carry out that portion of the plan.
    Both elements (A) and (E) address the requirement that there is
adequate authority to implement and enforce the SIP and that there are
no legal impediments.
    The i-SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS describes
the SIP regulations governing the various functions of personnel within
the TCEQ, including the administrative, technical support, planning,
enforcement, and permitting functions of the program.
    With respect to funding, the TCAA requires TCEQ to establish an
emissions fee schedule for sources in order to fund the reasonable
costs of administering various air pollution control programs and
authorizes TCEQ to collect additional fees necessary to cover
reasonable costs associated with processing of air permit applications.
EPA conducts periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has
adequate resources and funding to, among other things, implement and
enforce the SIP.
    As required by the CAA, the Texas statutes and the SIP stipulate
that any board or body, which approves permits or enforcement orders,
must have at least a majority of members who represent the public
interest and do not derive any ``significant portion'' of their income
from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders or who appear
before the board on issues related to the CAA or the TCAA. The members
of the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are
required to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
    With respect to assurances that the State has responsibility to
implement the SIP adequately when it authorizes local or other agencies
to carry out portions of the plan, the Texas statutes

and the SIP designate the TCEQ as the primary air pollution control
agency and TCEQ maintains authority to ensure implementation of any
applicable plan portion.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP must provide for
the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources, to monitor emissions from such sources. The SIP
shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and require
that the state correlate the source reports with emission limitations
or standards established under the CAA. These reports must be made
available for public inspection at reasonable times.
    The TCAA authorizes the TCEQ to require persons engaged in
operations which result in air pollution to monitor or test emissions
and to file reports containing information relating to the nature and
amount of emissions. There also are SIP-approved state regulations
pertaining to sampling and testing and requirements for reporting of
emissions inventories. In addition, SIP-approved rules establish
general requirements for maintaining records and reporting emissions.
    The TCEQ uses this information, in addition to information obtained
from other sources, to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS,
developing control and maintenance strategies, identifying sources and
general emission levels, and determining compliance with SIP-approved
regulations and additional EPA requirements. The SIP requires this
information be made available to the public. Provisions concerning the
handling of confidential data and proprietary business information are
included in the SIP-approved regulations. These rules specifically
exclude from confidential treatment any records concerning the nature
and amount of emissions reported by sources.
    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide for authority to
address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or welfare or the environment and to include contingency
plans to implement such authorities as necessary.
    The TCAA provides TCEQ with authority to address environmental
emergencies, and TCEQ has contingency plans to implement emergency
episode provisions. Upon a finding that any owner/operator is
unreasonably affecting the public health, safety or welfare, or the
health of animal or plant life, or property, the TCAA and 30 TAC
chapters 35 and 118 authorize TCEQ to, after a reasonable attempt to
give notice, declare a state of emergency and issue without hearing an
emergency special order directing the owner/operator to cease such
pollution immediately. The TCEQ may issue emergency orders, or issue or
suspend air permits as required by an air pollution emergency.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise
their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of
improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA
finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
    The TCAA authorizes the TCEQ to revise the Texas SIP, as necessary,
to account for revisions of an existing NAAQS, establishment of a new
NAAQS, to attain and maintain a NAAQS, to abate air pollution, to adopt
more effective methods of attaining a NAAQS, and to respond to EPA SIP
calls concerning NAAQS adoption or implementation.
    (I) Nonattainment areas: The CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) requires that
in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as
nonattainment areas, states must meet applicable requirements of part D
of the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment
areas.
    However, as noted earlier, EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP
submissions to address subsection (I). The specific SIP submissions for
designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D,
are subject to different submission schedules than those for section
110 infrastructure elements. Instead, EPA will take action on any part
D attainment plan SIP submission through a separate rulemaking process
governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in
part D.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three
CAA requirements: (1) Section 121, relating to interagency consultation
regarding certain CAA requirements; (2) section 127, relating to public
notification of NAAQS exceedances and related issues; and (3)
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and (4)
visibility protection.
    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the TCAA, there must
be a public hearing before the adoption of any regulations or emission
control requirements, and all interested persons are given a reasonable
opportunity to review the action that is being proposed and to submit
data or arguments, either orally or in writing, and to examine the
testimony of witnesses from the hearing. In addition, the TCAA provides
the TCEQ the power and duty to establish cooperative agreements with
local authorities, and consult with other states, the federal
government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters
of common interest in the field of air quality control. Furthermore,
the Texas PSD SIP rules mandate that the TCEQ shall provide for public
participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any
other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government
officials of the city or county where the source will be located,
tribal authorities, and Federal Land Manager (FLMs) whose lands may be
affected by emissions from the source or modification. Additionally,
the State's PSD SIP rules require the TCEQ to consult with FLMs
regarding permit applications for sources with the potential to impact
Class I Federal Areas. The SIP also includes a commitment to consult
continually with the FLMs on the review and implementation of the
visibility program. The State recognizes the expertise of the FLMs in
monitoring and new source review applicability analyses for visibility,
and has agreed to notify the FLMs of any advance notification or early
consultation with a new or modifying source prior to the submission of
a permit application. Likewise, the State's Transportation Conformity
SIP rules provide for interagency consultation, resolution of
conflicts, and public notification.
    (2) Public Notification: The i-SIP submission from Texas provide
the SIP regulatory citations requiring the TCEQ to regularly notify the
public of instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded. Included
in the SIP are the rules for TCEQ to advise the public of the health
hazard associated with such exceedances; and enhance public awareness
of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the
public can participate in the regulatory and other efforts to improve
air quality. In addition, as discussed for infrastructure element B
above, the TCEQ air monitoring website provides quality data for each
of the monitoring stations in Texas; this data is provided
instantaneously for certain pollutants, such as ozone. The website also
provides information on the health

effects of lead, ozone, particulate matter, and other criteria
pollutants.
    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements for this
element are the same as those addressed under element (C) above. The
Texas SIP requirements relating to visibility protection are not
affected when EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA
believes that there are no new visibility protection requirements due
to the revision of the NAAQS, and consequently there are no newly
applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to infrastructure
element (J).
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for
performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the
effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant,
and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    The TCEQ has the power and duty, under TCAA to develop facts and
investigate providing for the functions of environmental air quality
assessment. Past modeling and emissions reductions measures have been
submitted by the State and approved into the SIP. Additionally, TCEQ
has the ability to perform modeling for primary and secondary NAAQS on
a case by case permit basis consistent with their SIP-approved PSD
rules and with EPA guidance.
    The TCAA authorizes and requires TCEQ to cooperate with the federal
government and local authorities concerning matters of common interest
in the field of air quality control, thereby allowing the agency to
make such submissions to the EPA.
    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority, as a
condition of any permit required under the CAA, to cover the cost of
reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if
the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms
of the permit. The fee requirement applies until a fee program
established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, relating to
operating permits, is approved by EPA.
    See the discussion for element (E) above for the description of the
mandatory collection of permitting fees outlined in the SIP.
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP
must provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    See discussion for element (J) (1) and (2) above for a description
of the SIP's public participation process, the authority to advise and
consult, and the PSD SIP's public participation requirements.
Additionally, the TCAA also requires initiation of cooperative action
between local authorities and the TCEQ, between one local authority and
another, or among any combination of local authorities and the TCEQ for
control of air pollution in areas having related air pollution problems
that overlap the boundaries of political subdivisions, and entering
into agreements and compacts with adjoining states and Indian tribes,
where appropriate. The transportation conformity component of the Texas
SIP requires that interagency consultation and opportunity for public
involvement be provided before making transportation conformity
determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on
transportation-related issues.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the majority of the December 1, 2015
infrastructure SIP submission from Texas, which address the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The Table below outlines the specific
actions EPA is proposing to approve.

   Table 1--Proposed Action on Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittal for
                              Various NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Element                             2012 PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control         A
 measures.
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data   A
 system.
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures..........  A
(C)(ii):PSD program for major sources and      A
 major modifications.
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor         A
 sources and minor modifications.
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/        A
 interfere with maintenance of NAAQS
 (requirements 1 and 2).
(D)(i)(II): PSD (requirement 3)..............  A
(D)(i)(II): Visibility Protection              NA
 (requirement 4).
(D)(ii): Interstate and International          A
 Pollution Abatement.
(E)(i): Adequate resources...................  A
(E)(ii): State boards........................  A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect    A
 to local agencies.
(F): Stationary source monitoring system.....  A
(G): Emergency power.........................  A
(H): Future SIP revisions....................  A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan           +
 revisions under part D.
(J)(i): Consultation with government           A
 officials.
(J)(ii): Public notification.................  A
(J)(iii): PSD................................  A
(J)(iv): Visibility protection...............  +
(K): Air quality modeling and data...........  A
(L): Permitting fees.........................  A
(M): Consultation and participation by         A
 affected local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table 1: Proposed action on TX infrastructure SIP submittals for
  various NAAQS.
A--Approve.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
NA EPA is taking no action on this infrastructure requirement.

    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submission and
relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced
in this submission or referenced in Texas' SIP, EPA believes that Texas
has the

infrastructure in place to address all applicable required elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the
2012 PM2.5, NAAQS are implemented in the state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: March 16, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-05767 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6781-6782]
[DOCID:fr10fe10-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61493; File No. SR-CHX-2010-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Increase the Provide Credit for Transactions Involving Issues Priced
Less Than One Dollar

February 4, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 29, 2010, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective February 1, 2010, to
change its transaction fees and rebates to Exchange Participants for
transactions involving issues priced less than one dollar that occur
within the Exchange's Matching System. The text of this proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/
rules/proposed_rules.htm and in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

1. Purpose
    Through this filing, the Exchange would amend its Fee Schedule to
increase the provide credit to Exchange Participants for transactions
involving issues priced less than one dollar that occur within the
Exchange's Matching System.
    The Exchange proposes to increase the provide credit in the
transactions described above from 0.10% to 0.15% of the trade value.\5\
The Exchange believes that the increased rebate will help attract
additional orders to be displayed and executed on our trading
facilities. The Exchange notes that some of our competitors have
recently raised their provide rebates for securities priced under $1,
and that our proposed increase will help us remain competitive with
these entities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Trade value'' is defined in our Fee Schedule as ``a dollar
amount equal to the price per share multiplied by the number of
shares executed.''
    \6\ The Direct Edge ECN raised its provide credit to 0.15% for
transactions under $1 in Tape A, B and C securities for its EDGX
trading platform beginning in the month of January 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members. Among other things, the change to the
fee schedule would provide incentives to Participants to increase the
amount of liquidity provided on our trading facilities for securities
priced less than $1, which may contribute to an increase

in trading volume on the Exchange and in the income derived therefrom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(B)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder \10\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or
other charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2010-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-03 and should be
submitted on or before March 3, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2958 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738 R 06 001 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances January 2006 Agency ( 7508C) __________________________________________________________________________

Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Tridemorph Page 2 of 7 Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Tridemorph Approved By:

_______________________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division _______________________________ Date Page 3 of 7 I. Regulatory Determination The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires the Environmental Protection Agency ( the Agency or EPA) to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on the day before enactment of the FQPA on August 3, 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. When a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed. Existing tolerances associated with tridemorph must be reassessed in accordance with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA.

Tridemorph ( active ingredient number 121401) is a systemic fungicide used to treat black and yellow sigatoka on banana and plantain plants. There are no U. S. registrations for tridemorph use, and as such, the existing tolerance is commonly referred to as an import tolerance. Because there are no U. S. registrations, there are no expected ecological, drinking water, occupational or residential exposures in the U. S. Dietary ( food) residues on imported bananas and plantains are expected to be the only source of potential exposure to tridemorph; therefore, only a dietary ( food) risk assessment was conducted for this TRED.

The Agency has evaluated the human health risks associated with tridemorph residues on commodities and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from exposure to these residues. In making this determination, EPA has considered dietary exposure from food sources of pesticide exposure ( the only exposure route) for which there is reliable information. Therefore, the one ( 1) tolerance for residues of tridemorph on banana ( including plantain) is now considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA.

The Agency's human health safety finding for the pesticide tridemorph is summarized in Tridemorph HED Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision ( TRED) Document, dated November 7, 2005. For further details, please refer to this risk assessment and other technical documents pertaining to the tridemorph TRED, which are available on the internet at www. regulations. gov under Docket # EPA HQ OPP 2005 0505 and in the public docket for viewing.

The Agency is issuing this TRED document for tridemorph as announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. The Agency is providing a 30 day comment period for stakeholders to respond to this risk management decision. If substantive information is received during the comment period that indicates a need to refine any of EPA's assumptions or a need for risk mitigation, then this decision will be modified as appropriate through an amendment to the TRED. Page 4 of 7 II. Tolerance Reassessment A. FQPA Assessment Supporting Tolerance Reassessment Decision The Agency has conducted a human health risk assessment to ensure that the tridemorph tolerance meets the new safety standards established by FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. This risk assessment for tridemorph includes evaluation of potential susceptibility to infants and children and dietary exposure to adults and children. EPA also considered potential cumulative risks for tridemorph and other substances sharing a common mechanism of toxicity, as well as potential endocrine effects associated with tridemorph.

EPA has determined that risk from exposure to tridemorph is within its own " risk cup." In other words, EPA is able to conclude today that the tolerance for tridemorph meets the FQPA safety standards. Although the toxicological database had some deficiencies, the database as a whole is adequate for tolerance reassessment. In reaching this determination, the Agency has considered the available information on the potential sensitivity of infants and children, as well as acute and chronic food exposure. Because there are no existing registrations for the use of tridemorph in the U. S., only acute and chronic dietary ( food) assessments were conducted for potential exposure to tridemorph per se residues in/ on imported bananas/ plantains. Results of both dietary assessments indicate that the human health risks from these exposures are considered to be within acceptable levels; that is, all assessed risks from exposure to tridemorph " fit" within the individual risk cup for this chemical. The Agency's risk assessment conclusions are summarized below.

FQPA Safety Factor Considerations. The FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, directs the Agency to use an additional tenfold ( 10X) safety factor to take into account potential pre and post natal toxicity and completeness of the database with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and children. FFDCA authorizes the Agency to modify the 10X safety factor only if reliable data demonstrate that the resulting level of exposure would be safe for infants and children.

The available developmental toxicity information indicates increased quantitative and qualitative susceptibility ( increased incidence for developmental anomalies) in rats and increased quantitative susceptibility ( reduction in fetal weight) in mice since the developmental findings occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity.

The degree of concern for the prenatal susceptibility effects in rabbits and post natal susceptibility effects in rats could not be determined when the risk assessment was completed due to data gaps in the toxicological database. Thus, during the preparation of this TRED, to address the potential degree of concern for infants and children, an FQPA safety factor of 10X was retained for both the acute and chronic reference dose derivations to account for uncertainty due to these data gaps. Although a series of toxicity studies, which may address the identified data gaps, were submitted after the risk assessment was completed, the Agency has not conducted a complete review of these data. However, based on a preliminary review of the data, Page 5 of 7 the Agency is confident that the 10X FQPA safety factor is adequately protective of potential effects to infants and children.

Dietary Risks ( food). Acute and chronic dietary ( food) risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM FCID   , Version 2.03), which use food consumption data from the USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) from 1994 1996 and 1998. In these analyses, the dietary exposure and risk estimates resulting from food intake were determined for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. The acute and chronic dietary exposure analyses for tridemorph were conducted using unrefined Tier 1 dietary exposure assumptions for all uses. The Tier 1 analysis assumes tolerance level residues, 100% crop treated for all commodities, and DEEM FCID   default processing factors for the processed commodities.

Dietary risk to each population group is measured by a population adjusted dose ( PAD), which is the reference dose ( RfD) adjusted for the FQPA safety factor. RfD is defined as the estimated human exposure level believed to have no adverse impact on human health. For tridemorph, the acute RfD is the No Observed Adverse Effects Level ( NOAEL) divided by 1,000X ( 10X for interspecies extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variation, and 10X FQPA safety factor due to toxicity data gaps). The acute RfD for tridemorph is based on developmental effects observed in the rat developmental study. An acute RfD was selected for the subpopulation females 13 49 only. An acute RfD was not selected for the U. S. general population or other population subgroups, because no effect attributable to a single ( or few) day( s) oral exposure was observed in available animal studies.

Since no acceptable chronic dietary study was available when the risk assessment was completed, the chronic RfD is based on the NOAEL established by a subchronic dietary dog study, which included clinical signs such as change in body weight and histopathology. Since the endpoint is based on the subchronic study, an additional 3X uncertainty factor ( UF) was applied for the extrapolation from subchronic to chronic study effects. The chronic population adjusted dose ( cPAD) for tridemorph is the RfD divided by the 3,000X ( 10X for interspecies extrapolation, 10X for intraspecies variation, 10X FQPA safety factor due to toxicity data gaps, and 3X uncertainty factor for the extrapolation of subchronic to chronic study effects). A dietary risk estimate that is less than 100% of the aPAD or cPAD does not exceed EPA's level of concern.

The Agency's Tier 1 acute and chronic dietary risk assessments indicate that dietary risk from tridemorph residues in food are low and below the Agency's level of concern. At the 95th percentile, the acute dietary risk estimate for the population subgroup females 13 49 years is 9% of the aPAD. The mean chronic dietary exposure estimate for the highest exposed population subgroup, children 1 2 years of age, is 18% of the cPAD.

Because there are no tridemorph registrations in the U. S., drinking water, occupational, and residential exposures to the U. S. population are not anticipated. Therefore, drinking water, occupational, residential, and aggregate risk assessments were not conducted. Page 6 of 7 B. Cumulative Assessment Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to tridemorph and any other substances, and tridemorph does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance reassessment action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that tridemorph has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanisms determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

C. Endocrine Disruptor Effects EPA is required under FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP).

Based on the available information, tridemorph was reported to cause degeneration of the testes with oligospermia and azoospermia in the subchronic rat and cryptorchidism ( testes failed to descend), dysplasia and atrophy of the testes in the subchronic dog study. However, these findings are preliminary and need to be confirmed. When additional appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, tridemorph may be subjected to further screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

D. Tolerance Summary Tolerances Listed in 40 CFR § 180.372 A tolerance has been established for residues of tridemorph in or on imported bananas at 0.1 ppm, which includes the same allowance for residues in or on plantains. The tolerance for residues of tridemorph in/ on plant commodities is expressed in terms of residues of tridemorph per se ( 2,6 dimethyl 4 tridecylmorpholine). New foreign residue data indicates the established tolerance must be increased to 1.0 ppm. Since there are no U. S. registrations, the tolerance should be footnoted to so indicate. Page 7 of 7 Table 1: Tolerance Summary for Tridemorph ( 40 CFR § 180.372)

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments Bananas 0.1 ppm 1.0 ppm The tolerance should be footnoted to indicate that there are no U. S. registrations associated with tridemorph.

There are no Codex maximum residue levels ( MRLs) for tridemorph. Therefore, no questions of compatibility with U. S. tolerances exist.

III. Data Gaps and Confirmatory Data Requirements The Agency concluded that the database for tridemorph is adequate for tolerance reassessment purposes, but identified some data gaps during the preparation of the risk assessment. To account for the uncertainty associated with the lack of these data, a 10X FQPA safety factor was used in both chronic and acute dietary assessments to account for the absence of these data, and an additional 3X UF was used in the chronic dietary assessment for extrapolation of subchronic to chronic effects. Further, highly conservative exposure assumptions were used in the unrefined Tier I dietary risk assessment ( i. e. 100% crop treated, default processing factors, and tolerance level residues).

Recently, after completion of the risk assessment, the registrant submitted a series of toxicity studies ( acute battery, subchronic oral toxicity in rats, chronic oral toxicity in rats, mice and dogs, developmental toxicity studies and a two generation reproduction study in rats, and a battery of mutagenic tests). Although these studies may address the identified data gaps, the Agency has not conducted a complete review of these data at this time. However, based on a preliminary review, the Agency is confident that the 10X FQPA safety factor, which was retained to account for uncertainty due to toxicity data gaps, in addition to the 3X UF applied to account for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic effects in the chronic risk assessment, as well as highly conservative exposure assumptions, are adequately protective of all populations, including infants and children. If, following a complete review of these data, information indicates that additional measures are necessary to ensure that the tridemorph tolerance meets the required safety standards, the Agency will amend this TRED accordingly.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37176-37177]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0110]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Stampede TLP, Green Canyon 468, Outer Continental
Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone around the
Stampede Tension Leg Platform (TLP) facility located in Green Canyon
Block 468 on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico.
The purpose of the safety zone is to protect the facility from all
vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways
that are not providing services to or working with the facility.
Placing a safety zone around the facility will significantly reduce the
threat of allisions, collisions, oil spills, releases of natural gas,
and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

DATES: This rule is effective September 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0110 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Rusty Wright, U.S. Coast Guard, District Eight
Waterways Management Branch; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
TLP Tension Leg Platform
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    HESS Corporation requested that an OCS safety zone extending 500
meters from each point on the Stampede Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
facility structure's outermost edge be established. There are safety
concerns for both the personnel aboard the facility and the
environment. In response, on May 10, 2017, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zone; Stampede TLP,
Green Canyon 468, Outer Continental Shelf on the Gulf of Mexico (82 FR
21337). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to this safety zone. During the
comment period that ended on June 7, 2017, we received 1 comment.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 14 U.S.C.
85, 43 U.S.C. 1333, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1, and 33 CFR 147.1 and 147.10, which collectively permit the
establishment of safety zones for facilities located on the OCS for the
purpose of protecting life and property on the facilities, and the
marine environment in the safety zones. The Coast Guard has determined
that a safety zone is necessary to protect the facility from all
vessels operating outside the normal shipping channels and fairways
that are not providing services to or working with the facility.
Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone consists of large
commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with
tows and the occasional recreational vessel. The deepwater area also
includes an extensive system of fairways. The purpose of the rule is to
significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases
of natural gas, and thereby protect the safety of life, property, and
the environment.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received 1 comment on our NPRM published on May
10, 2017. The commenter asked to specify the horizontal datum (NAD 27,
NAD 83, etc.) for the latitude and longitude position in the rule. We
have done so. In this rule, as in all OCS Safety Zone rules, we use the
NAD 83 horizontal datum.
    This rule establishes a safety zone on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Green Canyon Block
468. The area for the safety zone is 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each
point on the facility, which is located at 27[deg]30'33.3431'' N.,
90[deg]33'22.963'' W., (NAD 83). The deepwater area is waters of 304.8
meters (1,000 feet) or greater depth extending to the limits of the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) contiguous to the territorial sea of the
United States and extending to a distance up to 200 nautical miles from
the baseline from which the breadth of the sea is measured. No vessel,
except those attending the facility, or those less than 100 feet in
length and not engaged in towing will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking, and we considered the First
Amendment rights of protestors. Below we summarize our analyses based
on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location of
the Stampede TLP, on the OCS, and its distance from both land and
safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the safety zone will be
able to safely travel around the zone using alternate routes.
Exceptions to this rule include vessels measuring less than 100 feet in
length overall and not engaged in towing. The Eighth Coast Guard
District Commander, or a designated representative, will consider
requests to transit through the safety zone on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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
received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule affects your small
business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. 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.

F. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that 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 involves establishing a safety zone around an
offshore deepwater facility. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination, prepared and signed
before April 3, 2017, are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  147.867 to read as follows:

Sec.  147.867  Stampede TLP facility safety zone.

    (a) Description. The Stampede Tension Leg Platform (TLP) system is
in the deepwater area of the Gulf of Mexico at Green Canyon Block 468.
The facility is located at 27[deg]30'33.3431'' N. 90[deg]33'22.963'' W.
(NAD 83) and the area within 500 meters (1640.4 feet) from each point
on the facility structure's outer edge is a safety zone.
    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
    (1) An attending vessel, as defined by 33 CFR 147.20;
    (2) A vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in
towing; or
    (3) A vessel authorized by the Eighth Coast Guard District
Commander.

    Dated: July 14, 2017.
David R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-16685 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, September 8, 2020 12:19 PM
To:
BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Hi. My comments below in red CAPS highlight. Please also copy RTI when you respond. I believe this request was in original email.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 4, 2020 1:21 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Hi Donna Lee,
Thank you for sending this over and giving an opportunity for us to provide input.  Before we send our comments back, it would be helpful to have your input on three questions:
 In the Excel file (Coke Ovens-Example Emission Calcs-Aug_2020.xlsx), we noticed that there is a column for industry comments, "COMMENTS" MAY INCLUDE REVISED VAUES BUT NOTE IN COVER EMAIL TO MAKE CLEAR. but no column for revised values. In recent RTRs, EPA has made a draft RTR emissions risk modeling file available, with fields to provide revised values for each input. For example, EPA made this type of file available for the Copper Smelting RTR on 2/26/2020: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/primary-copper-smelting-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air (see link for "DRAFT Primary Copper RTR Emissions Risk Modeling File" in the Additional Resources section). BEST TO LOOK AT STEEL RULES FOR MY PROTOCOLS. I DID THIS ALSO FOR INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL (SUBPART FFFFF).
      Does EPA plan to provide a draft risk modeling file at a later date, YES or should we provide revised values at this time?  We expect to have a number of changes to emission factors to provide. PLEASE PROVIDE EMISSIONS NOW BUT CAN ALSO DO IT LATER. PREFER NOW BECAUSE WE ARE DOING EMISSIONS NOW. NEW INFO IN MODELING FILE IS MOSTLY LOCATION AND OTHER PHYSICAL DATA..

 Does EPA plan to estimate fugitive emissions from sources under this source category?  If so, what methodology will be used? WE WILL ESTIMATE PUSHING FUGITIVES, ESPECIALLY FOR BYPRODUCT. DO YOU HAVE ESTIMATES FOR YOUR FACILITIES?

 How does EPA plan to conduct the multi-pathway risk assessment if more than one facility results in risks above the Tier 2 multi-pathway threshold? WE HAVE DONE ALL NECESSARY FACILITIES IN PAST FOR STEEL SOURCES. FOR COKE, WE WILL NEED TO SEE SCREENING RESULTS FIRST. We have noticed that in recent RTRs, EPA does a site-specific risk assessment only for the facility with the highest Tier 2 multi-pathway screening value for each exposure scenario (e.g. fisher or farmer) and only for that exposure scenario. Do you expect to follow the same methodology for this RTR? WE DO WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. NEED NEARBY WATER BODIES FOR FISHER.

We look forward to your responses, and please let us know if you have any follow-up questions.  Have a good weekend!

Thank you,

Katie Batten
Director of Health, Safety and Environmental

SunCoke Energy, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 11:32 AM
To<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Charles Jones'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brenna M Harden<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Robert B Sanch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SINGLETON, KRIS E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Whole industry QA review of Coke data and calculations

Hello all - We have finished tabulating all of the test data and developing emissions (lb HAP/ton coke, lb HAP/hr, and/or ton HAP/year) from the test facilities, as well as generating default HAP emission factors (lb HAP/ton coke produced or lb HAP/hr) for facilities that did not test or did not do all tests.

Please review and send your comments back (either in the spreadsheets themselves and/or with attached comments) on or before September 28, 2020 (Monday).

I tried to send this email to at least two people per company for all facilities, to make sure I include at least one correct person who can  distribute this QA review to all their company's facilities. Please let me know if I should substitute or add someone else for future emails about the EPA Coke data or the QA.

The attached files are listed below with a description of their contents:
1.    CokeOvens-Estimates&Assumptions-Aug_2020 (Word file)
 Explains the assumptions and estimates used in the Excel spreadsheets.

2.    CokeOvens-Example Emission Calcs-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 Example calculations for Antimony (Sb) emissions using test data from facilities who tested, for each source category process (EP-1 through EP-9*). The spreadsheet takes the calculations through a complete calculation sequence as an example of what will be done for all HAP tested.
 Shows the default emission factors developed from the test data that will be used for Antimony, as an example HAP, for facilities without test data for the indicated process, to be done next for all HAP tested.
 Shows the application of the default emission factors for Antimony to all facilities without test data for the indicated process to calculate tons Antimony (Sb)/year, to be done next for all HAP.

 The CU (Capacity Utilization) worksheet shows the production values reported to the EPA and the values estimated by the EPA for use in the emission calculations and estimates, for all coke facilities.
 Erie production values from test data (wet/dry coal charged/pushed, and total coke) and ratios developed from these data, to be used to estimate production for facilities without complete production data.

3.    CokeOvens-Enclosures-1&2-QA-Whole_Industry-Emissions-Test-Data-Aug_2020 (Excel file)
 All of the previously reviewed (by individual facility) run-by-run stack test (air) data for all pollutants from test facilities and the EPA calculations made using the test data to produce lb HAP/hr and lb HAP/ton coke emission factors for all HAP.
 Industry default emission factors to be used as default for all HAP, for facilities without test data, developed as described for Antimony in Example Emissions Calcs file.
 Battery (physical) dimensions to be reviewed by industry facilities.
 Oven and battery count from the ICR and previous EPA report (2001 BID).
 Same CU (Capacity Utilization) and Erie production worksheets, as described above for the Example Emissions Calcs file.
 All other test data submitted in the ICR, such as water and opacity tests, COG tests, material tests, etc., which may not be completely summarized, as yet, by the EPA.

Next step will be for EPA to use the approach shown in the Example Emission file and data in the Whole Industry Emissions file to generate all HAP emissions for all coke facilities.

If you have any questions before 9/28/20, please contact Gabrielle AND me by email, and one of us will get back to you.

  * EP-1 BP Pushing (CD), EP-9 HNR Pushing (CD), EP-3 BP Combustion Stacks, EP-4 BP Boiler Stacks, EP-6 HRSG Main Stacks, EP-7 HRSG Bypass-Waste Heat Stacks, EP-8 HNR Charging (CD), EP-10 Quench Tower.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.