40803 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations  2. Section 180.505 is revised to read as follows:

§ 180.505 Emamectin; tolerances for residues. ( a) General. Tolerances are established for the combined residues of emamectin, ( a mixture of a minimum of 90% 4  epi methylamino 4  deoxyavermectin B1a and maximum of 10% 4  epi methylamino 4  deoxyavermectin B1b) and its metabolites 8,9 isomer of the B1a and B1b component of the parent ( 8,9 ZMA), or 4  deoxy 4  epi amino avermectin B1a and 4  deoxy 4  epi amino avermectin B1b; 4  deoxy 4  epi amino avermectin B1a ( AB1a); 4  deoxy 4  epi( N formyl Nmethyl amino avermectin ( MFB1a); and 4  deoxy 4  epi( N formyl) aminoavermectin B1a ( FAB1a), in or on the following commodities:

Commodity Parts per million Cotton, gin byproduct ............... 0.050 Cotton, undelinted seed ........... 0.025 Tomato, paste ........................... 0.150 Turnip, greens .......................... 0.050 Vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5 .................................. 0.050 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 ...... 0.020 Vegetable, leafy, except Brassica group 4 ......................... 0.100 ( b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [ Reserved] ( c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [ Reserved] ( d) Indirect and inadvertant residues. Tolerances are established for indirect or inadvertent combined residues of emamectin ( MAB1a + MAB1b isomers) and the associated 8,9 Z isomers ( 8,9 ZB1a + 8,9 ZB1b) in or on the following commodities when present therein as a result of the application of emamectin to crops listed in the table to paragraph ( a) of this section:

Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat .................................. 0.003 Cattle, liver ................................ 0.020 Cattle, meat .............................. 0.002 Cattle, meat byproducts ( except liver) ...................................... 0.005 Cattle, milk ................................ 0.003 Goats, fat .................................. 0.003 Goats, liver ............................... 0.020 Goats, meat .............................. 0.002 Goats, meat byproducts ( except liver) .............................. 0.005 Goats, milk ................................ 0.003 Hogs, fat ................................... 0.003 Hogs, liver ................................. 0.020 Hogs, meat ............................... 0.002 Hogs, meat byproducts ( except liver) ...................................... 0.005 Hogs, milk ................................. 0.003 Horses, fat ................................ 0.003 Commodity Parts per million Horses, liver .............................. 0.020 Horses, meat ............................ 0.002 Horses, meat byproducts ( except liver) .............................. 0.005 Horses, milk .............................. 0.003 Sheep, fat ................................. 0.003 Sheep, liver ............................... 0.020 Sheep, meat ............................. 0.002 Sheep, meat byproducts ( except liver) .............................. 0.005 Sheep, milk ............................... 0.003 [ FR Doc. 03   17212 Filed 7   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0134; FRL   7303   6]

Diallyl Sulfides; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of diallyl sulfides ( DADs) in/ on garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots. Platte Chemical Company submitted a petition to EPA under section 408( d)( 1)( B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of DADs in/ on garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots. DATES: This regulation is effective July 9, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0134, must be received on or before September 8, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit IX. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Driss Benmhend, c/ o Product Manager ( PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9525; e mail address: Benmhend. driss@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 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 the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0134. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180 _ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http://

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 08 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1 40804 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations www. epa. gov/ opptsfrs/ home/ guidelin. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings In the Federal Register of November 21, 2001 ( 66 FR 58481) ( FRL   6802   2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408( d)( 3) of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d)( 3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition ( PP 1F6316) by Platte Chemical Company, 419 18th Street, Greeley, CO 80632. As required by section 408( d)( 2)( A)( i)( I), this notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Platte Chemical Company. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of diallyl sulfides.

III. Risk Assessment New section 408( c)( 2)( A)( i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance ( the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is `` safe.'' Section 408( c)( 2)( A)( ii) defines `` safe'' to mean that `` there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408( b)( 2)( C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to `` ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, section 408( b)( 2)( D) requires that the Agency consider `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

IV. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. DADs are a composition of diallyl sulfides that includes diallyl monosulfide, diallyl disulfide, diallyl trisulfide, and diallyl pentasulfide. They are naturally occurring compounds found in Allium crops, including onion and garlic and are partially responsible for the distinctive odor of garlic. The end use product, Alli Up is proposed for use as a soil fumigant solution for the control of white rot ( Sclerotium cepivorum) in garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots. It contains 90% of DADs in a liquid formulation ( 8.3 lbs of active ingredient per gallon). Application is recommended for any field that shows evidence or has a history of white rot infestations. When applied to infected soils in conjunction with a rotational crop, DADs will mimic the presence of an Allium crop, which will in turn stimulate the germination of white rot spores ( sclerotia). The germinated spores will subsequently perish since no host crop is present. The product is applied through conventional soil fumigation equipment such as an enclosed shanking system. Toxicity studies submitted in support of the tolerance exemption petition, and the Agency reviews are compiled in the public docket established for this action under the docket ID number OPP   2003   0134. 1. Acute oral toxicity ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.1100; 152   10; Master Record Identification Number ( MRID) 45422907). Five male and 5 female rats were dosed with 200, 600, and 1,000 milligram/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) and 10 of each were dosed with 5,000 mg/ kg. The acute oral LD 50 was determined at 346 mg/ kg. Treated rats displayed a number of abnormalities including breathing abnormalities, wobbly gait, decreased defecation, decreased activity, and pilo erection. The abnormalities are attributed to hemolytic anemia as it is experienced by rodents when feeding on materials rich on sulfur and derived from onion and garlic. 2. Acute dermal toxicity ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.1200; 152   11; MRID 45422908). Five male and 5 female rats were dosed with 1,500, 1,750, and 2,000 mg/ kg, observed daily and weighed weekly. The acute dermal LD50 of DADs in male rats was determined to be 1,826 mg/ kg, in female 2,009 mg/ kg, and in sexes combined 1,967 mg/ kg, or a Toxicity Category II. 3. Primary eye irritation ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.2400; 152   13; MRID 45422909). Six rabbits were administered DADs in the right eye with the left eye serving as an untreated control. Exposure of the test article produced corneal opacity in 3/ 6 test eyes at the 1 or 24   hour scoring interval. Conjunctivitis was noted in 6/ 6 test eyes at the 1   hour testing interval. The conjunctival irritation resolved completely in all animals by study day 14. Under the conditions of the test, DADs are considered a moderate eye irritant, and Toxicity Category III for eye irritation. 4. Primary dermal irritation ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.2500; 152   14; MRID 45422910). These compound are Toxicity Category II for dermal irritation. Severe skin reactions of the rabbits exposed, with evident erythema grade 2 and 1 at 1 hour post exposure were observed. 5. Dermal sensitization ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.2600; 152   15; MRID 45422911). A dermal sensitization potential test for DADs was evaluated using guinea pigs. DADs were found to be contact dermal sensitizers in guinea pigs, in accordance with the Buehler test. 6. Mutagenicity ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.5195; MRID 45422912). A Salmonella/ mammalian microsome reverse mutation assay ( Ames Test) was done using DADs. The assay evaluated the test article for its ability to induce reverse mutations at the histidine locus in the genome of specific Salmonella typhimurium tester strains in both the presence and absence of an exogenous metabolic activation system of mammalian microsomal enzymes derived from ArocolrTM induced rat liver. The results of the assay indicate that under the conditions of the study, DADs did not cause a positive increase in the number of histidine revertants per VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 19 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1 40805 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations plate of any of the tester strains either in the presence or absence of the microsomal enzymes prepared from the ArocolrTM induced rat liver ( S9). As a result, Diallyl disulfide, the main component of DADs, are not considered mutagenics. Data Waivers were requested for the following studies: Acute inhalation toxicity ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.1300; 152   12). Mammalian mutagenicity tests ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.5195) except for an Ames test. 90   Day feeding ( 1 species) ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3100). 90   Day dermal ( 1 species) ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3250). 90   Day inhalation ( 1 species) ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3465). Teratogenicity ( 1 species) ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3700). Chronic exposure ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.4100) ( Tier III) Oncogenicity ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.4200) ( Tier III) DADs are naturally present in garlic and other Allium crops and in fields planted with these crops. In spite of the long history of garlic consumption and exposure to DADs by humans, no immunotoxic effects, such as induced dysfunction or inappropriate suppressive or stimulatory responses in components of the immune system of humans or test animals have been reported and are not expected from the exposure to DADs. As a result, the waiver requests listed above were approved.

V. Aggregate Exposures In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings ( residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure The product Alli Up containing DADs is intended for agricultural use as a soil fumigant for the purpose of suppression of onion white rot ( Sclerotia cepivorum). The presence of DADs in the soil will stimulate the pathogen to become active and seek out its host, an Allium sp., which is not present. The pathogen will then perish. DADs in the soil are then subject to microbial breakdown and adsorption to soil particles. By the time the soil is prepared and ready for a new crop, most DADs have already dissipated. As a result, when new crops are planted, the likelihood of DADs residue present in the mature crop is considered low. 1. Food. From food and feed uses. As explained above, the presence of DADs residue in food is unlikely. Moreover, the primary source for human exposure to DADs would occur through the consumption of garlic, other Allium crops or garlic derived products. There have been no reports of adverse reactions to humans resulting from the consumption of Allium crops and derived products. The over all toxicology profile of DADs suggests that the risk associated with acute exposures by the oral route would be low. 2. Drinking water exposure. Since Alli Up will only be used as a soil fumigant, there is little if any, potential for drinking water exposure from pesticide drift in the surface water. Moreover, DADs in the soil are then subject to microbial breakdown and adsorption to soil particles and dissipation in the air. Therefore, the level of residues that might get into the ground water or surface water would most likely be negligible.

B. Other Non Occupational Exposure The potential for non dietary exposure to DADs for the general population is unlikely because potential use sites are commercial agricultural. Since the material is shanked into the treated soil during commercial applications, any odor present would be similar to that of a commercial garlic field or to that arising from freshly cut or pressed garlic as found in a typical household kitchen. EPA is unaware of any reports of adverse reactions to humans resulting from Allium crops and derived products odor or consumption.

VI. Cumulative Effects Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether DADs have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, DADs do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that DADs have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances ( 62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

VII. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the lack of observed developmental toxicity, EPA has concluded there is reasonable certainty that no harm to infants, children, or adults will result from aggregate exposure to DADs residues. Exemption of DADs from the requirements of a tolerance should pose no significant risk to humans or the environment. 3. Conclusion. There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues of diallyl sulfides to the U. S. population. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the low levels of toxicity, the long history of safe consumption of garlic and onions which naturally contain diallyl sulfides, and the lack of exposure. Levels of exposure resulting from use of diallyl sulfides would be significantly lower than those found in the U. S. population's consumption of onion and garlic foods ( raw, cooked and processed). Moreover, the Agency concludes that diallyl sulfides is nontoxic to humans, including infants and children. Thus, there is no threshold effects of concern and, as a result the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply. Further, the provisions of consumption patterns,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 19 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1 40806 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply. As a result, EPA has not used a margin of exposure ( safety) approach to assess the safety of diallyl sulfides.

VIII. Determination of Safety Based on the preceding assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to DAD residues.

IX. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors EPA is required under section 408 of the FFDCA 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 the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there is no 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 wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP). When the appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, DADs may be subjected to additional screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Based on available data, no endocrine system related effects have been identified with consumption of DADs. In addition, DADs do not share any structural similarity to any known endocrine disruptive chemical.

B. Analytical Method EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for the reasons stated above. Because a tolerance exemption does not establish numerical limit for the amount of the pesticide chemical residues that may be present, and for the reasons stated above that led the Agency to conclude that a tolerance exemption was warranted, the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not necessary for enforcement purposes for DADs.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level No Codex maximum residue levels are established for residues of DADs in or on any food or feed crop. There are no established tolerances or exemptions from tolerance for DADs in the United States. The Agency has classified DADs as a biochemical pesticide.

X. Conclusions Based on the toxicology data submitted, there is reasonable certainty no harm will result from aggregate exposure of residues of DADs to the U. S. population, including infants and children, This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which reliable data were submitted, accepted and reviewed. The Agency has no reports of adverse reactions of humans resulting from Allium crops and derived products' odor or consumption. As a result, EPA establishes an exemption from tolerance requirements pursuant to FFDCA section 408( c) and ( d) for residues of DADs in or on garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots.

XI. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need To Do To File an Objection or Request a Hearing? You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2003   0134 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 8, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 19 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1 40807 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 2. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0134, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 2. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing? A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under section 408( d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408( d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

XIII. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a `` major rule '' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 19 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1 40808 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Dated: June 13, 2003. James Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

 2. Section 180.1228 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

§ 180.1228 Diallyl sulfides; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of diallyl sulfides when used in/ on garlic, leeks, onions, and shallots.

[ FR Doc. 03   17106 Filed 7   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [ Docket No. 030514123   3162   02; I. D. 041003B]

RIN 0648   AQ76 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 38 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement measures contained in Framework Adjustment 38 ( Framework 38) to the Northeast ( NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan ( FMP) to exempt a fishery from the Gulf of Maine ( GOM) Regulated Mesh Area mesh size regulations. Framework 38 establishes an exempted small mesh silver hake ( Merluccius bilinearis) ( whiting) fishery in the inshore GOM. The exempted fishery is authorized from July 1 through November 30 each year; requires the use of specific exempted grate raised footrope trawl gear; establishes a maximum whiting possession limit of 7,500 lb ( 3,402 kg); and includes incidental catch restrictions. DATES: This regulation is effective July 9, 2003. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Framework 38 document, its Regulatory Impact Review ( RIR), the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( IRFA), the Environmental Assessment and other supporting documents for the framework adjustment are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council ( Council), 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. These documents are also available online at http:// www. nefmc. org. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( FRFA) consists of the IRFA, public comments and responses contained in this final rule, and the summary of impacts and alternatives contained in this final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Martin Jaffe, Fishery Policy Analyst, 978   281   9272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule implements measures contained in Framework 38 to the FMP. Details concerning the justification for and development of Framework 38 and the implementing regulations were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule ( 68 FR 27774, May 21, 2003) and are not repeated here.

Exempted Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Fishery Area The Exempted Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Fishery Area is an inshore area in the GOM extending to the Loran 44500 line and northward along the coast of Maine. This area most closely represents the historical whiting fishery and the area utilized by the fishermen who participated in the experimental whiting grate fisheries between 1996 and 2002. During the development of this framework adjustment, the Council considered three options for the fishery area, including the area option implemented by this final rule. The first option was the largest area under consideration and included an offshore component to the area implemented. Another option was the smallest area under consideration and represented a subset of the area implemented, where past experimental fishing was concentrated. The area implemented was selected by the Council, following an endorsement by the Plan Development Team ( PDT), even though sampling was not conducted throughout the entire area. The area was selected because there were sufficient similarities ( species composition, hydrography, habitat, current flow, bottom topography) between it and the subset where the experiment occurred to suggest that bycatch in the area implemented may be similar to that observed in the experiments. Thus, the rate of capture of regulated species is not expected to differ over the area implemented.

Fishing Season The season for the GOM Grate Raised Footrope Trawl Fishery is July 1 November 30. This period encompasses the traditional seasonal presence of whiting along the coast of Maine in the GOM and the period of documented catch and bycatch during research trials and experimental small mesh fisheries permitted by NMFS between 1996 and 2002. The PDT expressed support for a season from July 1 to November 30, based on documented catch rates and experimental data from 2001 and 2002, which were reviewed by the PDT in detail. During the development of this framework adjustment, the Council considered establishing a season for this fishery from June 1 to November 30, but ultimately decided to eliminate the month of June from consideration after evaluating the data. These data show that the coastal whiting fishery started in July and ended in November. The majority of experimental tows with the proposed sweepless trawl were conducted during October and November 2001 and 2002. Past experience demonstrates that the catches of whiting are generally lower and the bycatch of regulated species is relatively higher during these months than during the summer. Given that the 2001 and 2002 data for the proposed sweepless trawl show low absolute bycatch of regulated species during October and November, the gear is expected to fish with even lower bycatch during the summer.

Gear Specifications There are several gear specifications for this fishery, including net specifications for the raised footrope trawl, that are consistent with those in the Cape Cod Bay whiting fishery, a requirement to use a sweepless trawl, and a requirement to use a Nordmorestyle grate with a maximum bar spacing of 50 mm ( 1.97 inches). There is also a minimum codend mesh requirement of 2.5 inches ( 6.35 cm) ( square or diamond mesh). Vessels may use net strengtheners in this fishery, provided that they are consistent with the existing net strengthener provisions for 2.5 inch ( 6.35 cm) mesh.

Whiting/ Offshore Hake Possession Limit There is a maximum whiting/ offshore hake possession limit of 7,500 lb ( 3,402 kg) for this fishery. Vessels using mesh larger than the minimum 2.5 inches VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 19 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYR1. SGM 09JYR1


[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36767-36768]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-890-000]

Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of
Order

June 19, 2006.
    Hampton Lumber Mills-Washington, Inc. (Hampton Lumber) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate
schedule. The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale
of energy and capacity at market-based rates. Hampton Lumber also
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Hampton Lumber requested that the Commission grant blanket approval
under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability by Hampton Lumber.
    On June 15, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Hampton Lumber should file a motion to intervene or protest with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is July 17, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Hampton Lumber is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations
or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in
respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance
or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes
of Hampton Lumber, compatible with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Hampton Lumber's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.

    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10123 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


adequate means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least
once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;
    (4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year,
but at intervals not to exceed 15 months; and
    (5) Establish and implement procedures for when a different
controller assumes responsibility, including the content of information
to be exchanged.
    (d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following
methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that
could inhibit a controller's ability to carry out the roles and
responsibilities the operator has defined:
    (1) Establish shift lengths and schedule rotations that provide
controllers off-duty time sufficient to achieve eight hours of
continuous sleep;
    (2) Educate controllers and supervisors in fatigue mitigation
strategies and how off-duty activities contribute to fatigue;
    (3) Train controllers and supervisors to recognize the effects of
fatigue; and
    (4) Establish a maximum limit on controller hours-of-service, which
may provide for an emergency deviation from the maximum limit if
necessary for the safe operation of a pipeline facility.

    (e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have
a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller
response to alarms. An operator's plan must include provisions to:
    (1) Review SCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process
that ensures alarms are accurate and support safe pipeline operations;
    (2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting
safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms
inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual
values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated
maintenance or operating activities;
    (3) Verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and
alarm descriptions at least once each calendar year, but at intervals
not to exceed 15 months;
    (4) Review the alarm management plan required by this paragraph at
least once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15
months, to determine the effectiveness of the plan;
    (5) Monitor the content and volume of general activity being
directed to and required of each controller at least once each calendar
year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months, that will assure
controllers have sufficient time to analyze and react to incoming
alarms; and
    (6) Address deficiencies identified through the implementation of
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section.
    (f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that
could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control
room personnel by performing each of the following:
    (1) Establish communications between control room representatives,
operator's management, and associated field personnel when planning and
implementing physical changes to pipeline equipment or configuration;
    (2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when
emergency conditions exist and when making field changes that affect
control room operations; and
    (3) Seek control room or control room management participation in
planning prior to implementation of significant pipeline hydraulic or
configuration changes.
    (g) Operating experience. Each operator must assure that lessons
learned from its operating experience are incorporated, as appropriate,
into its control room management procedures by performing each of the
following:
    (1) Review incidents that must be reported pursuant to 49 CFR part
191 to determine if control room actions contributed to the event and,
if so, correct, where necessary, deficiencies related to:
    (i) Controller fatigue;
    (ii) Field equipment;
    (iii) The operation of any relief device;
    (iv) Procedures;
    (v) SCADA system configuration; and
    (vi) SCADA system performance.
    (2) Include lessons learned from the operator's experience in the
training program required by this section.
    (h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training
program and review the training program content to identify potential
improvements at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to
exceed 15 months. An operator's program must provide for training each
controller to carry out the roles and responsibilities defined by the
operator. In addition, the training program must include the following
elements:
    (1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur
simultaneously or in sequence;
    (2) Use of a computerized simulator or non-computerized (tabletop)
method for training controllers to recognize abnormal operating
conditions;
    (3) Training controllers on their responsibilities for
communication under the operator's emergency response procedures;
    (4) Training that will provide a controller a working knowledge of
the pipeline system, especially during the development of abnormal
operating conditions; and
    (5) For pipeline operating setups that are periodically, but
infrequently used, providing an opportunity for controllers to review
relevant procedures in advance of their application.
    (i) Compliance validation. Upon request, operators must submit
their procedures to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline
facility regulated by a State, to the appropriate State agency.
    (j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review
during inspection:
    (1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
this section; and
    (2) Documentation to demonstrate that any deviation from the
procedures required by this section was necessary for the safe
operation of a pipeline facility.

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
7. The authority citation for part 195 is amended to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60116,
60118, and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.

0
8. In Sec.  195.2, definitions for ``alarm,'' ``control room,''
``controller,'' and ``Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system'' are added in appropriate alphabetical order as follows:

Sec.  195.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Alarm means an audible or visible means of indicating to the
controller that equipment or processes are outside operator-defined,
safety-related parameters.
* * * * *
    Control room means an operations center staffed by personnel
charged with the responsibility for remotely monitoring and controlling
a pipeline facility.
    Controller means a qualified individual who remotely monitors and
controls the safety-related operations of a pipeline facility via a
SCADA system from a control room, and who has operational authority and
accountability for the remote operational functions of the pipeline
facility.
* * * * *
    Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system means a
computer-based system or systems used by a controller in a control room
that collects and displays information about a pipeline facility and
may have the ability to send commands back to the pipeline facility.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend 195.3 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b) add ``202-366-4595'' after ``20590-001'';
0
b. In the table in paragraph (c) items B.(18) and B.(19) are added to
read as follows:

Sec.  195.3  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source and name of referenced
              material                         49 CFR reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
B. * * *
(18) API Recommended Practice 1165    Sec.   195.446(c)(1).
 ``Recommended Practice for Pipeline
 SCADA Displays,'' (API RP 1165)
 First Edition (January 2007).
(19) API Recommended Practice 1168    Sec.   195.446(c)(5).
 ``Pipeline Control Room
 Management,'' (API RP 1168) First
 Edition (September 2008).

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

0
10. In Sec.  195.402, paragraph (c)(15) and (e)(10) are added to read
as follows:

Sec.  195.402  Procedural manual for operations, maintenance, and
emergencies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (15) Implementing the applicable control room management procedures
required by Sec.  195.446.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (10) Actions required to be taken by a controller during an
emergency, in accordance with Sec.  195.446.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 195.446 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  195.446  Control room management.

    (a) General. This section applies to each operator of a pipeline
facility with a controller working in a control room who monitors and
controls all or part of a pipeline facility through a SCADA system.
Each operator must have and follow written control room management
procedures that implement the requirements of this section. The
procedures required by this section must be integrated, as appropriate,
with the operator's written procedures required by Sec.  195.402. An
operator must develop the procedures no later than August 1, 2011 and
implement the procedures no later than February 1, 2012.
    (b) Roles and responsibilities. Each operator must define the roles
and responsibilities of a controller during normal, abnormal, and
emergency operating conditions. To provide for a controller's prompt
and appropriate response to operating conditions, an operator must
define each of the following:
    (1) A controller's authority and responsibility to make decisions
and take actions during normal operations;
    (2) A controller's role when an abnormal operating condition is
detected, even if the controller is not the first to detect the
condition, including the controller's responsibility to take specific
actions and to communicate with others;
    (3) A controller's role during an emergency, even if the controller
is not the first to detect the emergency, including the controller's
responsibility to take specific actions and to communicate with others;
and
    (4) A method of recording controller shift-changes and any hand-
over of responsibility between controllers.
    (c) Provide adequate information. Each operator must provide its
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures
necessary for the controllers to carry out the roles and
responsibilities the operator has defined by performing each of the
following:
    (1) Implement API RP 1165 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
195.3) whenever a SCADA system is added, expanded or replaced, unless
the operator demonstrates that certain provisions of API RP 1165 are
not practical for the SCADA system used;
    (2) Conduct a point-to-point verification between SCADA displays
and related field equipment when field equipment is added or moved and
when other changes that affect pipeline safety are made to field
equipment or SCADA displays;
    (3) Test and verify an internal communication plan to provide
adequate means for manual operation of the pipeline safely, at least
once each calendar year, but at intervals not to exceed 15 months;
    (4) Test any backup SCADA systems at least once each calendar year,
but at intervals not to exceed 15 months; and
    (5) Implement section 5 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  195.3) to establish procedures for when a different
controller assumes responsibility, including the content of information
to be exchanged.
    (d) Fatigue mitigation. Each operator must implement the following
methods to reduce the risk associated with controller fatigue that
could inhibit a controller's ability to carry out the roles and
responsibilities the operator has defined:
    (1) Establish shift lengths and schedule rotations that provide
controllers off-duty time sufficient to achieve eight hours of
continuous sleep;
    (2) Educate controllers and supervisors in fatigue mitigation
strategies and how off-duty activities contribute to fatigue;
    (3) Train controllers and supervisors to recognize the effects of
fatigue; and
    (4) Establish a maximum limit on controller hours-of-service, which
may provide for an emergency deviation from the maximum limit if
necessary for the safe operation of a pipeline facility.
    (e) Alarm management. Each operator using a SCADA system must have
a written alarm management plan to provide for effective controller
response to alarms. An operator's plan must include provisions to:
    (1) Review SCADA safety-related alarm operations using a process
that ensures alarms are accurate and support safe pipeline operations;
    (2) Identify at least once each calendar month points affecting
safety that have been taken off scan in the SCADA host, have had alarms
inhibited, generated false alarms, or that have had forced or manual
values for periods of time exceeding that required for associated
maintenance or operating activities;
    (3) Verify the correct safety-related alarm set-point values and
alarm descriptions when associated field instruments are calibrated or
changed and at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to
exceed 15 months;
    (4) Review the alarm management plan required by this paragraph at
least once each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 15
months, to determine the effectiveness of the plan;
    (5) Monitor the content and volume of general activity being
directed to and required of each controller at least once each calendar
year, but at intervals not exceeding 15 months, that will assure
controllers have sufficient time to analyze and react to incoming
alarms; and
    (6) Address deficiencies identified through the implementation of
paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section.
    (f) Change management. Each operator must assure that changes that
could affect control room operations are coordinated with the control
room

personnel by performing each of the following:
    (1) Implement section 7 of API RP 1168 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  195.3) for control room management change and require
coordination between control room representatives, operator's
management, and associated field personnel when planning and
implementing physical changes to pipeline equipment or configuration;
and
    (2) Require its field personnel to contact the control room when
emergency conditions exist and when making field changes that affect
control room operations.
    (g) Operating experience. Each operator must assure that lessons
learned from its operating experience are incorporated, as appropriate,
into its control room management procedures by performing each of the
following:
    (1) Review accidents that must be reported pursuant to Sec.  195.50
and 195.52 to determine if control room actions contributed to the
event and, if so, correct, where necessary, deficiencies related to:
    (i) Controller fatigue;
    (ii) Field equipment;
    (iii) The operation of any relief device;
    (iv) Procedures;
    (v) SCADA system configuration; and
    (vi) SCADA system performance.
    (2) Include lessons learned from the operator's experience in the
training program required by this section.
    (h) Training. Each operator must establish a controller training
program and review the training program content to identify potential
improvements at least once each calendar year, but at intervals not to
exceed 15 months. An operator's program must provide for training each
controller to carry out the roles and responsibilities defined by the
operator. In addition, the training program must include the following
elements:
    (1) Responding to abnormal operating conditions likely to occur
simultaneously or in sequence;
    (2) Use of a computerized simulator or non-computerized (tabletop)
method for training controllers to recognize abnormal operating
conditions;
    (3) Training controllers on their responsibilities for
communication under the operator's emergency response procedures;
    (4) Training that will provide a controller a working knowledge of
the pipeline system, especially during the development of abnormal
operating conditions; and
    (5) For pipeline operating setups that are periodically, but
infrequently used, providing an opportunity for controllers to review
relevant procedures in advance of their application.
    (i) Compliance validation. Upon request, operators must submit
their procedures to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline
facility regulated by a State, to the appropriate State agency.
    (j) Compliance and deviations. An operator must maintain for review
during inspection:
    (1) Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
this section; and
    (2) Documentation to demonstrate that any deviation from the
procedures required by this section was necessary for the safe
operation of the pipeline facility.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 2009 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-28469 Filed 12-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74573-74577]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26503]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2022-0880; FRL-10388-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; MO; Marginal Nonattainment Plan for the St.
Louis Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) on September 8, 2021,
and supplemented on April 8, 2022, as meeting the Marginal
nonattainment area requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) for the Missouri
portion of the St. Louis, MO-IL nonattainment area (``St. Louis area''
or ``area''). The EPA is proposing this action pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2022-0880 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Keas, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's submission?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
V. What action is the EPA proposing to take?
VI. Environmental Justice Considerations
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
0880, at https://www.regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is the background for this proposed action?

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human
health. On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015). Under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
part 50, the 2015 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
concentration is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm, when truncated after
the thousandth decimal place, at all ozone monitoring sites in the
area. See

40 CFR 50.19 and appendix U to 40 CFR part 50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B)
of the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any areas that
are violating the NAAQS, based on the most recent 3 years of quality
assured ozone monitoring data. On April 30, 2018, EPA designated the
St. Louis, MO-IL bi-state area as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS (83 FR 25776). The area included Boles Township of Franklin
County, St. Charles County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City in
Missouri, and Madison and St. Clair Counties in Illinois. As part of
that same action, EPA designated Jefferson County and the remaining
portion of Franklin County, in Missouri, and Monroe County in Illinois,
as attainment/unclassifiable. On July 10, 2020, the District of
Columbia Circuit Court remanded the Jefferson County, Missouri, and
Monroe County, Illinois, designations (among other designations) to the
EPA. The Court upheld EPA's designation of Boles Township as
nonattainment and the remainder of Franklin County as attainment/
unclassifiable. In response to the Court remand, the EPA revised the
Jefferson County, Missouri, and Monroe County, Illinois designation to
nonattainment on May 26, 2021 (86 FR 31438).
    On October 7, 2022, the EPA published a final rulemaking including
EPA's determination of whether areas designated as Marginal
nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS attained by the
applicable attainment date of August 3, 2021 (87 FR 60897). In that
document, the EPA determined the St. Louis bi-state area, among other
areas, failed to attain by the attainment date based on the monitoring
data available as of the attainment date, for the 2018-2020 time
period. In that time period, the highest design value in the St. Louis
area was 0.071 ppm which is above the level of the standard, 0.70 ppm.
As a result of EPA's determination that the St. Louis area failed to
attain by the Marginal attainment date, the area is reclassified to
Moderate nonattainment, effective November 7, 2022. Moderate
nonattainment areas must attain by August 3, 2024 and submit a Moderate
nonattainment area plan and its required elements by January 1, 2023.
The CAA requirements applicable to Marginal ozone nonattainment areas
continue to apply to Missouri despite the reclassification to Moderate.
Missouri's submission to meet the Marginal ozone nonattainment area
requirements is the subject of this action.

III. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's submission?

    Section 172(c) of the CAA sets forth the basic requirements of air
quality plans for states with nonattainment areas that are required to
submit them pursuant to section 172(b). Subpart 2 of part D, which
includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes specific requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas depending on the areas' nonattainment
classifications.
    The St. Louis area was classified as Marginal under subpart 2 for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the time of its nonattainment designation. At
the time of Missouri's September 2021 SIP submission, the area was
subject to the relevant requirements of subpart 1 contained in section
172(c) and section 176. Similarly, the area was subject to the subpart
2 requirements contained in section 182(a) (Marginal nonattainment area
requirements). A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
section 172(c) and 182 can be found in the April 16, 1992, General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of
1990 (57 FR 13498) and the April 28, 1992 supplement (57 FR 18070).
    As provided in subpart 2, for Marginal ozone nonattainment areas,
the specific requirements of section 182(a) apply in lieu of the
attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply under
section 172(c), including the attainment demonstration and reasonably
available control measures (RACM) under section 172(c)(1), reasonable
further progress (RFP) under section 172(c)(2), and contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. This
requirement is superseded by the inventory requirement in section
182(a)(1) discussed below.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area. The EPA most recently approved
Missouri's New Source Review (NSR) program on August 11, 2022 (87 FR
49530).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In its August 2022 action, the EPA partially approved and
partially disapproved Missouri's SIP revision related to state rule
10 CSR 10-6.060. In the August 2022 action, the EPA disapproved one
provision related to voluntary permits and approved the remainder of
the SIP revision. For purposes of this action, the EPA notes this
partial disapproval does not affect the state's ability to continue
implementation of its SIP-approved NSR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(b) requires states to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 172(c) no later than 3 years from the date of
the nonattainment designation. For the St. Louis nonattainment area,
the Marginal nonattainment area plan elements required under CAA
section 172 and 182 were due August 3, 2021. Missouri submitted the
requisite plan elements on September 8, 2021. In this action, the EPA
is proposing to approve the September 8, 2021 submission from Missouri
as meeting the relevant requirements of CAA section 172 and 182.
    Section 182(a)(2)(C) requires states to implement a permitting
program requiring permits for the construction and operation of new or
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area.
In its September 2021 submission, MoDNR confirms it has a fully-
approved and fully-implemented Part D NSR permitting program for new
major sources and significant modifications of existing sources enabled
by SIP-approved state rule 10 Code of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.060
Construction Permits Required. Missouri also notes it has been
delegated full authority to implement its NSR program by the EPA.
    Section 182(a)(3)(A) requires states to submit revised emission
inventories every three years until the area is redesignated to
attainment. Section 182(a)(3)(B) requires a revision to the SIP to
require the owners or operators of stationary sources to annually
submit emission statements documenting actual VOC and NOX
emissions. In its September 2021 submission, MoDNR committed to
providing future updates to its emissions inventory at least once every
3 years to meet the requirement of section 182(a)(3)(A). To meet the
requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B), the state certified that SIP-
approved state rule 10 CSR 10-6.110 requires annual emissions
statements from permitted sources in the state.
    Section 182(a)(4) requires establishing a Marginal Area emission
offset reduction ratio of 1.1:1 for VOC emissions. As noted in MoDNR's
September 2021 SIP revision, the requirement for emission offset
reductions is part of Missouri's NSR program and codified in the
state's regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.060(7)(C)1. The corresponding offset
ratio for each ozone area classification (i.e. 1.1:1 for Marginal) is
found in the Federal code

at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9). Thus, Missouri has satisfied the CAA section
182(a)(4) requirement for Marginal Area Plan submissions in
establishing a Marginal Area emission offset reduction ratio of 1.1:1
in its NSR program by SIP-approved rule consistent with the
corresponding Federal code.
    As noted above, section 182(a)(1) requires states to submit a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) emitted within the boundaries of the ozone
nonattainment area. The state's ``Marginal Area Plan for the Missouri
Portion of the St. Louis Nonattainment Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ground
Level Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' submitted by the
state on September 8, 2021, and supplemented on April 8, 2022, included
a 2017 base year emissions inventory for the Missouri portion of the
St. Louis area. The EPA has reviewed Missouri's emissions inventory
submission and as discussed further below, is proposing to approve it
as meeting the requirements of section 182(a)(1) of the CAA.
    The section 182(a)(1) base year inventory is defined in the SIP
Requirements Rule as ``a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within
the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section
182(a)(1).'' See 40 CFR 51.1300(p). The inventory year must be selected
consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by 40
CFR 51.1310(b), the inventory must include actual ozone season day
emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1300(q), and contain data elements
consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See
40 CFR 51.1315(a), (c), and (e). In addition, the point source
emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the
point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
    Missouri selected 2017 as the base year for the emissions
inventories, which was the most recent calendar year for which a
complete triennial inventory was required to be submitted to the EPA
under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, at the time of plan development. This
base year is consistent with the regulations for 2015 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area base year emission inventory regulations. See 40 CFR
51.1315(a) and 51.1310(b). The emissions inventory is based on data
developed and submitted by the MoDNR to EPA's 2017 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
    Missouri's emissions inventory for the St. Louis Area provides 2017
typical ozone season day emissions for NOX and VOC for the
following general source categories: point sources, nonpoint or area
sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources. MoDNR
documents the methodology used to determine the typical ozone season
day emissions by source category in the appendices to its September
2021 submittal, which is included in the docket for this action.
    Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of
emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. NOX
and VOC emissions were calculated by using facility-specific emissions
data reported to the 2017 NEI from sources that are required to submit
inventory data according to the AERR. A detailed account of the point
source emissions can be found in Appendix D to Missouri's September
2021 submittal and Appendix E to Missouri's April 2022 submittal.
    Area or nonpoint sources are small stationary sources of emissions,
which due to their large number, collectively have significant
emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these
sources are estimated at the county level and were obtained from the
2017 NEI. A detailed account of the area or nonpoint source emissions
can be found in Appendix C of Missouri's September 2021 submittal and
Appendix E to Missouri's April 2022 submittal.
    On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for
transportation of passengers or freight. For the St. Louis area, on-
road emissions inventories were developed using the latest version of
EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES), MOVES3, for each ozone
nonattainment county. County level on-road emissions modeling was
conducted using county-specific vehicle populations and other local
data. A detailed account of the on-road source emissions and
methodology can be found in Appendices A and B of Missouri's September
2021 submittal and Appendix E to Missouri's April 2022 submittal.
    Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment
used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that
do not use the roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment,
railroad locomotives, and aircraft). Missouri calculated emissions for
most non-road sources using the MOVES model's non-road option.
Estimated non-road emissions for commercial marine vessels, locomotives
and aircraft are based on reported activity data. A detailed account of
non-road mobile source emissions can be found in Appendix B of
Missouri's September 2021 submittal and Appendix E to Missouri's April
2022 submittal.
    As noted in MoDNR's submittal, the 2017 emission inventory is
created at the annual level for most source categories. Missouri
performed temporal allocation of emissions for all nonpoint, some
nonroad and all event source categories using the Sparse Matrix
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) model. For point source data,
Missouri utilized reported data to estimate ozone season day emissions
specific to each facility. For on-road and non-road emissions, the
MOVES3 model provides an output at the temporal scale of total daily
emissions. As described in MoDNR's submittal, a typical weekday in July
is selected as the representative typical ozone season day for these
model runs.
    In its April 8, 2022, submittal, MoDNR provided an updated 2017
base year emissions inventory using the latest version of EPA's MOVES3
model for on-road and non-road sources as well as updates to certain
non-road categories. Section 7 and Appendix E of Missouri's April 2022
SIP submission included in the docket for this action contain further
information related to the updated 2017 nonattainment base year
emissions inventory. Table 1 provides a summary of the nonattainment
base year anthropogenic emissions inventories for the Missouri portion
of the St. Louis area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This table contains the updated 2017 base year emissions
inventory as contained in Table 23 on page 41 of Missouri's April
2022 Submission titled, ``Maintenance Plan for the St. Louis
Nonattainment Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard'' which is included
in the docket for this action. In April 2022, Missouri separately
submitted a redesignation request for the St. Louis area, that
submittal also contained information on the updated 2017 base year
inventory and is included in the docket for this action, it is
titled, ``Redesignation Request for the St. Louis Nonattainment Area
for the 2015 Ozone Standard.''

                     Table 1--2017 Emissions for the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis Area
                                             [Tons/ozone season day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Point               Area               On-road            Non-road
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     NOX       VOC       NOX       VOC       NOX       VOC       NOX       VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boles Township, Franklin County.     21.86      1.29      0.08      1.08      1.40      0.49      0.64      0.25
Jefferson County................     22.37      2.24      0.48      6.99      8.88      3.42      2.47      1.66
St. Charles County..............     18.94      3.71      0.92     12.03     11.36      3.94      5.63      3.79
St. Louis County................      5.54      1.30      2.83     39.08     37.30     10.53     14.21     16.37
St. Louis City..................      3.19      2.71      0.99     10.46      9.97      3.68      3.78      1.86
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................     71.90     11.25      5.29     69.65     68.92     22.05     26.74     23.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri's April 2022 submittal contains additional plan elements
such as maintenance plan, contingency plan and attainment year
inventory. In today's action, the EPA is only proposing to approve the
updated 2017 nonattainment base year emissions inventory as included in
the April 2022 submittal as meeting the requirements of CAA section
182(a)(1) and is not acting on the other elements contained in the
April 2022 submittal. The EPA has reviewed Missouri's nonattainment
base year emissions inventories for the St. Louis Area and proposes to
approve them as meeting the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1)
and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well
as the requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Specifically, EPA
proposes to approve Missouri's Marginal nonattainment area plan as
submitted on September 8, 2021 and supplemented on April 8, 2022, as
meeting the Marginal nonattainment area requirements of CAA section
182(a) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Missouri portion of the
St. Louis area.

IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on the September 8, 2021, SIP revision
from April 26, 2021, to June 3, 2021, and held a public hearing on May
27, 2021. During the public comment period, the State received three
comments from the EPA. The State responds to the comments in its
submittal and made changes to the plan as a result of the comments. The
State provided public notice on the April 8, 2022, SIP revision from
December 27, 2021, to February 3, 2022, and held a public hearing on
January 27, 2022. During the public comment period, the State received
comments from various entities. The State addressed the comments in its
submittal. No comments received on the April 8, 2022, submittal were
related to the updated 2017 nonattainment base year emissions
inventory. In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA and implementing regulations.

V. What action is the EPA proposing to take?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the
MoDNR on September 8, 2021, and supplemented on April 8, 2022, as
meeting the Marginal nonattainment area requirements of CAA section
182(a) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Missouri portion of the
St. Louis area.

VI. Environmental Justice Considerations

    While EPA did not perform an area-specific environmental justice
analysis for purposes of this action, due to the nature of the action
being taken here, i.e. to merely approve emissions inventories and
certifications regarding Missouri's fully approved permitting program
as meeting the relevant plan requirements for Marginal nonattainment
areas, as explained in this preamble, this action is expected to have
no impact on air quality. For these reasons, this action is not
expected to have a disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on a particular group of people.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The basis for
this determination is contained in section VI of this action,
``Environmental Justice Considerations.''
    In addition, 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, this rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action
that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any
new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of
air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone
national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 30, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
 Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``(85)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      State submittal    EPA approval date      Explanation
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(85) Marginal Plan for the St.    St. Louis Area:     9/8/2021, 4/8/2022  [Date of            This action
 Louis 2015 8-Hour Ozone           Missouri counties                       publication of      approves the
 Nonattainment Area.               of Jefferson, St.                       the final rule in   Marginal
                                   Charles, and St.                        the Federal         nonattainment
                                   Louis along with                        Register],          area plan for the
                                   the City of St.                         [Federal Register   St. Louis Area
                                   Louis and Boles                         citation of the     for the 2015 8-
                                   Township in                             final rule].        hour Ozone NAAQS
                                   Franklin County.                                           [EPA-R07-OAR-2022-
                                                                                0880; FRL-10388-
                                                                                01-R7].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-26503 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P