[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 140 (Monday, July 24, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47409-47413]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0933; FRL-11004-01-R9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Placer County Air Pollution
Control District; General Permit Requirements, New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on two permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Placer County
Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD or ``District'') portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are proposing an
approval of one rule and proposing a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the second rule. These revisions concern the District's
New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources
of air pollution under title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action
updates the District's applicable SIP with revised rules that the
District has amended to address deficiencies identified in a previous
limited approval and limited disapproval action, as well as other
updates related to NSR requirements. We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0933 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Po-Chieh Ting, EPA Region IX, Air-3-1,
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the
dates on which they were adopted by the District and the date on which
they were submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Rule No.                                Rule title              Adopted date   Submitted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
501...........................................  General Permit Requirements.....      04/08/2021      10/06/2021
502...........................................  New Source Review...............      08/12/2021      10/06/2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 2022, the submittal for Rules 501 and 502 was deemed
complete by operation of law.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    The SIP-approved versions of Rules 501 and 502 are identified in
Table 2.

                                           Table 2--SIP Approved Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                SIP approval    Federal Register
                  Rule No.                               Rule title                 date            citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
501.........................................  General Permit Requirements....      04/20/2020        85 FR 21777
502.........................................  New Source Review..............      09/29/2014        79 FR 58263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA finalizes the actions proposed herein, these rules will
be replaced in the SIP by the submitted rules listed in Table 1.
Additionally, as described below, the EPA's final approval of Rule 501
will resolve our limited disapproval of Rule 501 from our 2020
rulemaking action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 85 FR 21777 (April 20, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    The submitted rules constitute part of the District's current
program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified
stationary sources under its jurisdiction. The rule revisions that are
the subject of this action represent an update to the District's
preconstruction review and permitting program and are intended to
satisfy the 2015 ozone NAAQS NSR program requirements under part D of
title I of the Act (``nonattainment NSR'' or ``NNSR''), the general
preconstruction review requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act (``minor NSR''), and related EPA regulations.
    Minor NSR requirements are generally applicable to permitted
sources, wherever located, while NNSR requirements apply only within
areas designated as nonattainment for one or more NAAQS. A portion of
Placer County is within the Sacramento Metro, CA ozone nonattainment
area, which is classified as ``Severe'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and as
Serious for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\2\ A portion of Placer County is also
within the Sacramento nonattainment area for the 2006 fine particle
(PM2.5) NAAQS with a Moderate classification.\3\ The
remaining areas within Placer County are designated attainment or
unclassifiable for all other NAAQS. Therefore, in addition to being
subject to the requirements for minor NSR at section 110(a)(2)(C) of
the Act, the District is required to adopt and implement a SIP-approved
NNSR permitting program that applies to new or modified major
stationary sources of ozone precursors, PM2.5, and
PM2.5 precursors within the corresponding portions of the
Placer County designated nonattainment under part D of title I of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 77 FR 30087 (May 21, 2012); 86 FR 59648 (October 28, 2021).
Sacramento Metro is also classified as Severe nonattainment for the
revoked 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995);
75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010).
    \3\ 74 FR 58687 (November 13, 2009); 79 FR 31566 (June 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 501 and Rule 502 provide requirements and procedures for
review of new stationary sources of air pollution and modification and
operation of existing stationary sources of air pollution, through the
issuance of permits under the minor NSR and NNSR programs.
Additionally, the submitted rules address each of the four deficiencies
identified in the EPA's 2020 limited disapproval of the previous
submitted version of Rule 501.\4\ Specifically, the revisions to Rule
501 address our findings that the previous Rule 501: (1) did not fully
satisfy the requirements at 40 CFR 51.160(b) regarding a permitting
agency's authority to deny a permit if a proposed project will cause a
violation of the SIP or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a
NAAQS; (2) did not fully satisfy requirements at 40 CFR 51.164 relating
to stack height procedures; and (3) relied on definitions in Rule 504,
``Emission Reduction Credits,'' which is not SIP-approved. The
submitted Rule 502 addresses our finding that the previous Rule 501 did
not fully satisfy the public notice requirements at 40 CFR 51.161 for
new or modified emissions units located in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin
portion of Placer County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 85 FR 21777 (April 20, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District has also further amended Rule 502 to ensure compliance
with NNSR permitting program requirements and recent federal court
rulings that have become effective since Rule 502 was last approved
into the SIP in 2014, as well as additional amendments not specifically
required for approval into the SIP, but which provide streamlining and
clarifying revisions. The District also added provisions to Rule 502 to
implement the visibility protection provisions in CAA section 169A and
40 CFR 51.307(b).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Such sources are required to perform a visibility impact
analysis consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.307(a) and 40
CFR 51.166(o), (p)(1) through (2) and (q). See 40 CFR 51.307(c). 40
CFR 51.307(d) also provides for States to require monitoring of
visibility in any Federal Class I area near the proposed new major
stationary source or major modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted rules?

    The EPA reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with CAA
requirements for: (1) stationary source preconstruction permitting
programs as set forth in CAA part D, including sections 110(a)(2)(C),
172(c)(5), 173, 182, and 189; (2) the review and modification of major
sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 as applicable in a
Severe ozone and Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area (the
area's highest applicable classifications); (3) the review of new major
stationary sources or major modifications located in a designated
nonattainment area that may have an impact on visibility in any
Mandatory Class I Federal area, in accordance with CAA section 169A and
40 CFR 51.307; (4) SIPs in general as set forth in CAA sections
110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(A); \6\ and (5) SIP revisions as set
forth in CAA section 110(l) \7\ and 193.\8\ For Rule 501, which was the
subject of our 2020 limited approval/limited disapproval, we have

focused on our analysis on revisions made in the most recent submittal.
We reviewed both rules to determine whether they address the
deficiencies identified in our 2020 limited disapproval of Rule 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable.
    \7\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by States to the EPA and prohibits the EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
    \8\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in
a nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP
be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing.
Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the
October 6, 2021 submittal of Rules 501 and 502, we find that the
District has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity
for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the
rules to the EPA.
    With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 172(c)(5), 173, 182, 189, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we
have evaluated the rules in accordance with the applicable CAA
statutory and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs under
part D of title I of the Act based on the area's Severe ozone and
Moderate PM2.5 classifications.\9\ Except for the
deficiencies discussed in Section II.C. of this preamble, we find that
Rule 502 satisfies these requirements. We have also determined that
Rule 502 satisfies the related visibility requirements in 40 CFR
51.307. In addition, we have determined that Rules 501 and 502 satisfy
the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that regulations submitted
to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An NNSR program that satisfies the requirements of the Act
and the EPA's regulations for Severe ozone nonattainment areas also
satisfies the NNSR program requirements for lower classifications,
including the NNSR program requirements applicable to the District
based on its Serious classification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to correcting the deficiencies in our 2020 limited
disapproval of Rule 501, we find that submitted Rules 501 and 502
address these deficiencies and satisfy all minor NSR program
requirements.
    Additionally, we have concluded that our action would comply with
CAA section 110(l) because our approval of Rule 501 and limited
approval of Rule 502 will not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other CAA
applicable requirement. Similarly, we find that our action is
consistent with the requirements of CAA section 193 because our
approval of Rule 501 and limited approval of Rule 502 will not relax
any pre-November 15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore changes
to the SIP resulting from this action ensure greater or equivalent
emission reductions of the nonattainment pollutants and their
precursors in the District.
    For more information about how the rules and our proposed approval
satisfy the applicable requirements, please see the technical support
document (TSD) found in the docket for this action.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    The EPA identified five deficiencies in Rule 502. These
deficiencies relate to the requirements of CAA sections 173(a), 173,
182(c), and 302(z), and 40 CFR 51.165(a), as summarized below:
    1. Rule 502 does not contain provisions to restrict permitting when
the EPA finds the SIP is not being adequately implemented in the area,
as required under CAA section 173(a)(4).
    2. The definition of the term ``Major Modification'' in Section 231
of the rule does not correctly apply the CAA section 182(c)(6)
requirements regarding aggregation of net emission increases and
incorrectly specifies use of potential to emit as the basis for
calculating emission increases.
    3. The rule does not contain the definition of ``Federal Land
Manager'' from 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xlii).
    4. The definition of the term ``Major Stationary Source--Sacramento
Air Basin'' in Section 229 of the rule does not specify a major source
threshold for ammonia, which is a PM2.5 precursor, as
required by 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13). Similarly, the definition of the term
``Major Modification'' in Section 231 of the rule is deficient because
it relies on the section 229 definition.
    5. The definition of ``Sacramento Valley Air Basin'' in Section 251
does not include a small area that is included in the federal
definition of the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Therefore, the rule is deficient because it does not apply the
PM2.5 NNSR program requirements to this area, as required
under CAA section 173.
    Our TSD contains a more detailed discussion of our analysis of Rule
502 and an explanation for each deficiency.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD also includes recommendations for additional clarifying
revisions for the District to consider when it next revises Rule 502.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
a full approval of Rule 501 because it corrects the previously
identified deficiencies and continues to satisfy the applicable
administrative statutory and regulatory provisions governing regulation
of stationary sources under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
    Additionally, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the
Act, the EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
Rule 502 because it fulfills most of the relevant CAA requirements, and
strengthens the SIP, but also contains five deficiencies. We have
concluded that our limited approval of the submitted rule would comply
with the relevant CAA requirements, including provisions of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, 182, 189, and 193, and
40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 51.307.
    If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan--in part).
This action would incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP,
including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is
limited because the EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rule under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). In
conjunction with the EPA's SIP approval of the District's visibility
provisions for sources subject to the NNSR program as meeting the
relevant requirements of 40 CFR 51.307, this action would also revise
the regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.281(d) concerning the
applicability of the visibility Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) at 40
CFR 52.28 as it pertains to California, to provide that this FIP does
not apply to sources subject to review under the District's SIP-
approved NNSR program.
    If finalized as proposed, our limited disapproval action would
trigger an obligation on the EPA to promulgate a FIP unless the State
corrects the deficiencies, and the EPA approves the related plan
revisions, within two years of the final action. Additionally, because
the deficiencies relate to NNSR requirements under part D of title I of
the Act, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in
the designated ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Placer
County 18 months after the effective date of a final limited
disapproval, and the highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1)
would apply in the areas six months after the offset sanction is
imposed. Section 179 sanctions will not be imposed under the CAA if the
State submits, and we approve, prior to the implementation of the
sanctions, a SIP revision that corrects the deficiencies

that we identify in our final action. The EPA intends to work with the
District to correct the deficiencies in a timely manner.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
August 23, 2023.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble, which implement
the District's NSR permitting program for new and modified sources of
air pollution and further described in Sections I and II of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review State choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action proposes a limited approval and
limited disapproval of State law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law.
    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by State law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes a limited
approval and limited disapproval of State law as meeting federal
requirements. Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health does
not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The State did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
this action, it is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the
air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required
as part of this action, and there is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for

people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-15346 Filed 7-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
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 U.S. prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on July 20, 2011.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Methane, Nitrous oxide.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Methane, Nitrous oxide.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Methane, Nitrous oxide.

40 CFR Part 71

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Greenhouse gases, Intergovernmental relations, Methane, Nitrous oxide.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
2. Section 51.166 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(48)(ii)(a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (48) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (a) Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each of the
six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated
global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98
of this chapter--Global Warming Potentials. For purposes of this
paragraph (b)(48)(ii)(a), prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide
emissions resulting from the combustion or decomposition of non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants,
animals, or micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues
and waste from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as
the non-fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial
and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the
decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material).
* * * * *

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
4. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(49)(ii)(a) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (49) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (a) Multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each of the
six greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated
global warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98
of this chapter--Global Warming Potentials. For purposes of this
paragraph, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting
from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals, or
micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste
from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as the non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and
municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the
decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material).
* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
6. Section 70.2 is amended by revising paragraph (2) of the definition
of ``Subject to regulation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  70.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

Subject to Regulation

* * * * *
    (2) The term tpy CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall represent an
amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed by multiplying the mass
amount of emissions (tpy), for each of the six greenhouse gases in the
pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global warming potential
published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98 of this chapter--Global
Warming Potentials, and summing the resultant value for each to compute
a tpy CO2e. For purposes of this paragraph, prior to July
21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide shall not
include carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the combustion or
decomposition of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material
originating from plants, animals, or micro-organisms (including
products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry
and related industries as well as the non-fossilized and biodegradable
organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases
and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic material).
* * * * *

PART 71--[AMENDED]

0
7. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
8. Section 71.2 is amended by revising paragraph (2) of the definition
of ``Subject to regulation'' to read as follows:

Sec.  71.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

Subject to Regulation

* * * * *
    (2) The term tpy CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e) shall
represent an amount of GHGs emitted, and shall be computed by
multiplying the mass amount of emissions (tpy), for each of the six
greenhouse gases in the pollutant GHGs, by the gas's associated global
warming potential published at Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98 of
this chapter--Global Warming Potentials, and summing the resultant
value for each to compute a tpy CO2e. For purposes of this
paragraph, prior to July 21, 2014, the mass of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide shall not include carbon dioxide emissions resulting
from the combustion or decomposition of non-fossilized and
biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals, or
micro-organisms (including products, by-products, residues and waste
from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as the non-
fossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and
municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the
decomposition of

non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-17256 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80445-80446]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32879]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66003; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Amex LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Changes Adopting New NYSE Rule 107C To
Establish a Retail Liquidity Program on a Pilot Basis To Attract
Additional Retail Order Flow to the Exchange for NYSE-listed Securities
and New NYSE Amex Equities Rule 107C To Establish a Retail Liquidity
Program on a Pilot Basis To Attract Additional Retail Order Flow to the
Exchange for NYSE Amex Equities Traded Securities

December 19, 2011.
    On October 19, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') (collectively the ``Exchanges'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4

thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes to adopt a pilot program intended
to attract additional retail order flow to the Exchanges while also
providing the potential for price improvement to such order flow. The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2011.\3\ To date, the Commission has received
27 comments on the NYSE proposal \4\ and 4 comments on the NYSE Amex
proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65671 (November 2,
2011), 76 FR 69774; 65672 (November 2, 2011), 76 FR 69788.
    \4\ See Letters to the Commission from Sal Arnuk, Joe Saluzzi
and Paul Zajac, Themis Trading LLC, dated October 17, 2011; Garret
Cook, dated November 4, 2011; James Johannes, dated November 27,
2011; Ken Voorhies, dated November 28, 2011; William Wuepper, dated
November 28, 2011; A. Joseph, dated November 28, 2011; Leonard
Amoruso, General Counsel, Knight Capital, Inc., dated November 28,
2011; Kevin Basic, dated November 28, 2011, J. Fournier, dated
November 28, 2011; Ullrich Fischer, CTO, PairCo, dated November 28,
2011; James Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, McDonough School
of Business, Georgetown University, dated November 28, 2011; Jordan
Wollin, dated November 29, 2011; Aaron Schafter, President, Great
Mountain Capital Management LLC, dated November 29, 2011; Wayne
Koch, Trader, Bright Trading, dated November 29, 2011; Kurt Schact,
CFA, Managing Director, and James Allen, CFA, Head, Capital Markets
Policy, CFA Institute, dated November 30, 2011; David Green, Bright
Trading, dated November 30, 2011; Robert Bright, Chief Executive
Officer, and Dennis Dick, CFA, Market Structure Consultant, Bright
Trading LLC, dated November 30, 2011; Bodil Jelsness, dated November
30, 2011; Christopher Nagy, Managing Director, Order Routing and
Market Data Strategy, TD Ameritrade, dated November 30, 2011; Laura
Kenney, dated November 30, 2011; Suhas Daftuar, Hudson River Trading
LLC, dated November 30, 2011; Bosier Parsons, Bright Trading LLC,
dated November 30, 2011; Mike Stewart, Head of Global Equities, UBS,
dated November 30, 2011; Dr. Larry Paden, Bright Trading, dated
December 1, 2011; Thomas Dercks, dated December 1, 2011; Eric
Swanson, Secretary, BATS Global Markets, Inc., dated December 6,
2011; and Ann Vlcek, Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
December 7, 2011.
    \5\ See Letters to the Commission from Leonard Amoruso, General
Counsel, Knight Capital, Inc., dated November 28, 2011; Kurt Schact,
CFA, Managing Director, and James Allen, CFA, Head, Capital Markets
Policy, CFA Institute, dated November 30, 2011; Christopher Nagy,
Managing Director, Order Routing and Market Data Strategy, TD
Ameritrade, dated November 30, 2011; and Shannon Jennewein, dated
November 30, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for these filings is December 24, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule changes. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period to take action on the proposed
rule changes so that it has sufficient time to consider the Exchanges'
proposals, which would allow the Exchanges to utilize non-displayed
orders that offered price improvement to retail order flow potentially
in sub-penny increments, and the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection with them.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\7\ the
Commission designated February 7, 2012 as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32879 Filed 12-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27452-27456]
[DOCID:fr16my07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800; FRL-8128-2]

Chlorantraniliprole; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on apple and apple, wet pomace,
celery, cucumber, head and leaf lettuce, pear, pepper, spinach, squash,
tomato and watermelon commodities. DuPont Crop Protection requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
The tolerances will expire on May 1, 2010.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 16, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 16, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Public Docket, in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kable Bo Davis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions discussed above. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    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. You must file your
objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with
the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800 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 July 16, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of October 13, 2006 (71 FR 198) (FRL-8096-
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 petition (PP
6G7089) by E I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection,
1090 Elkton Road, Newark, Delaware 19711. The petition requested that
40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, in or on apple at 0.3 parts per million (ppm), apple,
celery at 7.0 ppm, cucumber at 0.09 ppm, lettuce, head at 4.0 ppm,
lettuce, leaf at 7.5 ppm, pear at 0.30 ppm, pepper at 0.50 ppm, spinach
at 13.0 ppm, squash at 0.25 ppm, tomato at 0.30 ppm and watermelon at
0.20 ppm. This notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection, the
registrant, which has been included in the public docket. Several
comments were received from a private citizen on objecting to pesticide
body load, IR-4 profiteering, animal testing, and other related
matters. The Agency has received these same comments from this
commenter on numerous previous occasions. Refer to the Federal Register
of June 30, 2005 (70 FR 37686) (FRL-7718-3), January 7, 2005 (70 FR
1354) (FRL-7691-4), and October 29, 2004 69 FR 63096 for the Agency's
response to these objections.
    These temporary tolerances will permit the marketing of the above
raw agricultural commodities when treated in accordance with the
provisions of the experimental use permits 352-EUP-170, and 353-EUP-
171, which are being issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136).
    The scientific data reported and other relevant material were
evaluated, and it was determined that establishment of these temporary
tolerances will protect the public health. Therefore, these temporary
tolerances have been established on the condition that the pesticide be
used in accordance with the experimental use permits. The tolerances
will expire on May 1, 2010.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA 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) of the FFDCA 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. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of the FFDCA , for tolerances for residues of
chlorantraniliprole on apple at 0.25 ppm, apple, wet pomace at 0.60
ppm, celery at 7.0 ppm, cucumber at 0.10 ppm, lettuce, head at 4.0 ppm,
lettuce, leaf at 8.0 ppm, pear at 0.30 ppm, pepper at 0.50 ppm, spinach
at 13.0 ppm, squash at 0.40 ppm, tomato at 0.30 ppm and watermelon at
0.20 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies 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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by chlorantraniliprole as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the dose at which NOAEL from the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to
estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the LOAEL
of concern are identified is sometimes used for risk assessment if no
NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty
factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns.

    The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method
currently used by the Agency to quantify non-threshold hazards such as
cancer. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead
to some degree of cancer risk, estimates risk in terms of the
probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases. More information
can be found on the general principles EPA uses in risk
characterization at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/human.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for chlorantraniliprole
used for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0800.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Chlorantraniliprole is
a new active ingredient and tolerances have not been established. A
risk assessment was conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from
chlorantraniliprole in food (from crops treated under the experimental
permits) as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a one day or single exposure. Acute dietary (food and
drinking water) exposure assessments were conducted for
chlorantraniliprole using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-
FCID), and reflect the proposed uses on apple, celery, cucumber, head
and leaf lettuce, pear, pepper, spinach, squash, tomato and watermelon
crops. The modeled exposure estimates are based on tolerance level
residues (calculated using the maximum residue level calculator)
assuming 100% of crops are treated and surface water estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) (because surface water EDWCs were higher
than ground water EDWCs).
    ii. Chronic exposure. Chronic dietary (food and drinking water)
exposure assessments were conducted for chlorantraniliprole using the
DEEM-FCID), and reflect the proposed uses on apple, celery, cucumber,
head and leaf lettuce, pear, pepper, spinach, squash, tomato and
watermelon crops. The modeled exposure estimates are based on tolerance
level residues (calculated using the maximum residue level calculator)
assuming 100% of crops are treated and surface water estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) (because surface water EDWCs were higher
than ground water EDWCs).
    iii. Cancer. Long-term exposure is not expected to result from use
under these Experimental Use Permits (EUPs). The submitted subchronic
studies in mice, dog and rats, and the in vivo and in vitro
genotoxicity studies, identified no tumors or preneoplastic foci, nor
did they identify mutagenic concern. Therefore, the expected short/
intermediate-term exposure resulting from the EUPs does not indicate a
concern for carcinogenicity.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Clorantraniliprole is an
unregistered chemical, thus, the Agency lacks sufficient monitoring
data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for chlorantraniliprole in drinking water. Because the
Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the physical characteristics of
chlorantraniliprole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water
models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    Based on the EPA's pesticide root zone model/exposure analysis
modeling system (PRZM/EXAMS) and screening concentration in groundwater
(SCI-GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
chlorantraniliprole for acute exposures are estimated to be 14 ppb for
surface water and 0.38 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 2.3 ppb for surface water and 0.38 for
ground water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Chlorantraniliprole is not registered for use on any sites that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. 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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to chlorantraniliprole and
any other substances and chlorantraniliprole does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
chlorantraniliprole has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
.

D. 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 margin of exposure
(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. There were no effects on
fetal growth or development up to the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams
killogram day (mg/kg/day) in rats or rabbits. There were no treatment
related effects on the numbers of litters, fetuses (live or dead),
resorptions, sex ratio, or post-implantation loss. There were no
effects on fetal body weights, skeletal ossification, and external,
visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations.
    3. Conclusion. Due to the following, the FQPA Safety Factor does
not need to be retained at this time:
    The toxicology database is complete for the characterization of
potential prenatal and postnatal risks to infants and children. No
susceptibility was identified in the toxicological data base, and there
are no residual uncertainties re: prenatal and/or postnatal exposure
(i.e., the developmental and reproduction studies report no adverse
effects related to treatment >= 1,000 mg/kg/day limit dose). Therefore,
a degree of concern analysis for prenatal and/or postnatal
susceptibility is not necessary.
    Highly conservative dietary (food and water) exposure estimates are
at least 60,000 times lower than the highest

dose tested in the mammalian toxicity studies (at which no adverse
observed effects were seen).

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    1. Acute/chronic risk. Aggregating routes and/or pathways of
exposure is not relevant, since no hazard was identified via any route
of exposure in the EUP toxicology data base.
    2. Short/Intermediate-term risk. Chlorantraniliprole is not
registered for use on any sites that would result in short and
intermediate residential exposure and therefore no risk assessment was
conducted for this scenario.
    3. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Long-term exposure is
not expected to result from use under these EUPs. The submitted
subchronic studies in mice, dog and rats, and the in vivo and in vitro
genotoxicity studies, identified no tumors or preneoplastic foci, nor
did they identify mutagenic concern.
    4. Determination of safety. Based on these risk 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 chlorantraniliprole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    LC/MS/MS methods are available for measuring chlorantraniliprole in
plants and livestock. The registrant submitted an LC/MS/MS method for
the determination of chlorantraniliprole in plants, and an LC/MS/MS
method for the determination of chlorantraniliprole and its metabolites
in livestock.
    Adequate method and concurrent recovery data were provided for the
plant LC/MS/MS method, and the fortification levels used in the method
and concurrent validation are adequate to bracket the residue levels
determined in the proposed crops. An analytical method for enforcing
tolerances in livestock commodities is not germane to this EUP as
tolerances in meat, milk, poultry and eggs are not required.

B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican MRLs
for chlorantraniliprole.

C. Conditions

    None.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-
[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide, in or on apple at 0.25 ppm, apple, wet pomace at 0.60 ppm,
celery at 7.0 ppm, cucumber at 0.10 ppm, lettuce, head at 4.0 ppm,
lettuce, leaf at 8.0 ppm, pear at 0.30 ppm, pepper at 0.50 ppm, spinach
at 13.0 ppm, squash at 0.40 ppm, tomato at 0.30 ppm and watermelon at
0.20 ppm. These tolerances will expire on May 1, 2010.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
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, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). 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., 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).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance 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.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action
alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities
established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section
408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This rule does not 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).
    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).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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.

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 180.628 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 180.628  Chlorantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) Tolerances are established for residues of the pesticide
chlorantraniliprole (3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-
carboxamide) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Expiration/revocation
                           Commodity                               Parts per million               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple                                                                              0.25               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, wet pomace                                                                  0.60               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Celery                                                                              7.0               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cucumber                                                                           0.10               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lettuce, head                                                                       4.0               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lettuce, leaf                                                                       8.0               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pear                                                                               0.30               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pepper                                                                             0.50               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spinach                                                                            13.0               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Squash                                                                             0.40               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomato                                                                             0.30               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watermelon                                                                         0.20               05/01/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. E7-9206 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S