[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68339-68349]
[DOCID:fr10no05-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[OAR-2005-0150a; FRL-7995-3]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona;
Correction of Boundary of Phoenix Metropolitan 1-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to correct the boundary of
the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the
Gila River Indian Reservation. EPA is taking this action under the
authority of section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act and in light of the
Federal trust responsibility to the Tribes. This action is intended to
facilitate and support the Gila River Indian Community's efforts to
develop, adopt and implement a comprehensive Tribal Implementation Plan
by removing unnecessary obligations that flow from the erroneous
inclusion of a portion of the Reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: This action will be effective on January 9, 2006, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 12,
2005.
    If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take
effect and that we will respond to submitted comments and take
subsequent final action.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number OAR-2005-0150,
by one of the following methods:
    1. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers

receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Mail or deliver: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, and EPA will not
know your identify or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in hard copy at EPA

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

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

Table of Contents

I. Regulatory Context
II. Gila River Indian Community's Request for a Boundary Change
III. EPA Review of the Gila River Indian Community's Request
    A. CAA Authority to Correct Area Designations
    B. General Physical Description of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area
and Environs
    C. Contribution by Emission Sources on the Reservation
    D. Oxidants/Ozone Air Quality Conditions on the Reservation
    E. Ozone Planning Issues
    F. Evaluation and Conclusion
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Regulatory Context

    On April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186), pursuant to section 109 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), as amended in 1970, EPA promulgated
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria
pollutants, including photochemical oxidants (``oxidants''). EPA set
the NAAQS for oxidants (measured as ozone) at 0.08 parts per million
(ppm), 1-hour average. Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970, States were required to adopt and submit plans that
provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
These original plans, generally submitted and approved in the early
1970's, are known as State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

    Under EPA regulations promulgated under the 1970 amended Act,
States were required to identify areas (referred to as ``air quality
maintenance areas'' (AQMAs)) that were violating or that had the
potential to violate the NAAQS by 1985, to submit detailed analyses of
the impacts on air quality of projected growth in these areas, and,
where the analysis indicates that the NAAQS will not be maintained, to
submit SIP revisions containing measures to ensure maintenance during
the ensuing period. In 1975, EPA approved Arizona's identification of
the Phoenix Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as an AQMA
for oxidants. See 40 FR 41942 (September 9, 1975). The Phoenix SMSA
includes all of Maricopa County, which encompasses an area of
approximately 9,200 square miles in south-central Arizona, and includes
the northern quarter of the Gila River Indian Reservation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Gila River Indian Reservation lies south of the
urbanized portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area and straddles the
boundary between Maricopa County and Pinal County. The Reservation
encompasses approximately 580 square miles, of which approximately
140 square miles lie within Maricopa County and 440 square miles lie
within Pinal County.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A task force consisting of representatives of Federal, State, and
local government agencies as well as community groups (but no Tribal
representatives) was created to guide the preparation of the detailed
air quality maintenance analysis for the Phoenix AQMA as required under
EPA regulations. The air quality maintenance analysis focused on a
study area of approximately 1,700 square miles covering the urbanized
portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area. The study area was based on
the Maricopa Association of Governments \2\ (MAG) primary planning
area, which included only a small portion of the Maricopa County
portion of the Reservation.\3\ The final air quality maintenance
analysis report was published in July 1977.\4\ This maintenance
analysis report identified and evaluated 11 specific control strategies
for attaining and maintaining the oxidants standard within the study
area, but was not submitted to EPA as a SIP revision in anticipation of
different planning requirements and deadlines under amendments to the
Clean Air Act then under active consideration by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ MAG is a Council of Governments that serves as the regional
agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area. MAG was formed in 1967. In
1978, the Governor of Arizona designated MAG as the lead air quality
planning agency for Maricopa County. The Gila River Indian Community
joined MAG in 1989.
    \3\ The portion of the Reservation that was included in the
Phoenix AQMA study area consists of a rectangular area traversed by
Interstate 10 and defined by the Reservation boundaries to the north
and east and by a southward extension of Priest Drive to the west
and a westward extension of Hunt Highway to the south. This area is
about 24 square miles, which represents approximately 17% of the
Maricopa County portion of the Reservation.
    \4\ Aerovironment Inc., Air Quality Maintenance Analysis in
Phoenix, Arizona, Final Report, July 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress did amend the Act in 1977, and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 replaced the AQMA approach with a new approach,
under which all areas of the country were designated as attainment,
nonattainment, or unclassifiable for each of the NAAQS. Under the 1977
amended Act, ``nonattainment area'' meant an area which is shown by
monitored data or which is calculated by air quality modeling (or other
methods determined by EPA to be reliable) to exceed any NAAQS. On March
3, 1978 (43 FR 8962), under section 107(d)(2) of the 1977 Amended Act,
EPA promulgated area designations for each State with respect to each
of the NAAQS. The area designations are found in 40 CFR part 81. The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required specific types of SIP
revisions for designated nonattainment areas and other types of SIP
revisions for unclassifiable/attainment areas.
    Within the State of Arizona, EPA designated Maricopa County as a
nonattainment area for the oxidants NAAQS. See 43 FR 8962, at 8968
(March 3, 1978). EPA designated the rest of the State, which included
the Pinal County portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation, as
unclassifiable/attainment for the oxidants NAAQS. As such, the northern
quarter of the Reservation was located in the Maricopa County
nonattainment area and the southern three-quarters was located within
the unclassifiable/attainment area. The following year, EPA approved a
request by the State of Arizona to reduce the size of this county-wide
nonattainment area to include only the MAG urban planning area (see 44
FR 16388, March 19, 1979). The MAG urban planning area is approximately
1,950 square miles and is 14 percent larger than the MAG primary
planning area, which had been the study area for the purposes of the
AQMA analysis. The MAG urban planning area also includes the Maricopa
County portion (i.e., northern quarter) of the Gila River Indian
Reservation.
    Also in 1979, we established a new ozone NAAQS to replace the
oxidants NAAQS (see 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). The new NAAQS was
set at 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average. In September 1979, we replaced the
Arizona table in 40 CFR part 81 that listed areas and designations for
the oxidants NAAQS with a table that listed areas and designations for
the then-new 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 54294 (September 19, 1979).
In that final rule, we designated the Tucson area, which had been
designated as nonattainment for the oxidants NAAQS, as unclassifiable/
attainment for the ozone NAAQS, but we reaffirmed the previous status
(nonattainment) and boundary (MAG urban planning area) designation for
the Phoenix metropolitan area for the new 1-hour ozone NAAQS as had
been established for the oxidants NAAQS. We also reaffirmed the
unclassifiable/attainment designation for ``rest of state.''
    Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the concept of
``nonattainment area'' was expanded to include areas that contribute to
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet a NAAQS as well
as the area that actually experiences NAAQS violations. See section
107(d)(1)(A) of the Act. Under the 1990 amended Act, the designation of
``nonattainment'' and boundary (i.e., the MAG urban planning area) for
the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was carried
forward by operation of law. Further, under the 1990 Act Amendments,
the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area was classified as
``moderate'' ozone nonattainment. See 56 FR 56694, 56717 (November 6,
1991). On November 6, 1997, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area was reclassified to ``serious'' due to a failure to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996. See 62 FR 60001
(November 6, 1997).
    In 1997, we established a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS to replace the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS that we had established in 1979 (see 62 FR 38856, July
18, 1997). The new NAAQS was set at 0.08 ppm, 8-hour average. In 2004,
we published final rules that designated all areas of the country with
respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004, and that
established June 15, 2005 as the date on which the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
would be revoked. See 69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). In
consultation with the State of Arizona and the Gila River Indian
Community, we designated the Phoenix-Mesa area as a nonattainment area
for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
does not include any portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation. See
69 FR 23858, at 23878-23879 (April 30, 2004). All of the Gila River
Indian Reservation, i.e., both Maricopa and Pinal County portions, lies
within the ``rest of state'' unclassifiable/attainment area for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Under the first

phase of the final rule implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, certain
requirements apply to former 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas that are
designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(such as the Maricopa County portion of the Gila River Indian
Reservation), such as the preparation and submittal of a SIP revision
consisting of a plan that provides for continued maintenance of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years following designation and that includes
contingency measures. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3); 69 FR 23951, at 23999
(April 30, 2004).
    On March 21, 2005 (70 FR 13425), we published a notice in the
Federal Register proposing this same boundary change as part of a
notice that also proposed approval of various submittals of revisions
to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) and a request by the
State of Arizona for redesignation of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area to attainment. We received no comments related
to the proposed boundary change, but we decided to withdraw the
boundary change portion of the March 21, 2005 proposal. See 70 FR 34362
(June 14, 2005). We withdrew the proposed boundary change because we
decided to review the action as a correction under section 110(k)(6)
rather than as a redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(A) as had been
proposed, based on our preliminary conclusion that we had incorrectly
included the northern portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation in
the nonattainment area boundary back in the late 1970's. In our final
rule approving the redesignation request for the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment area (70 FR 34362, June 14, 2005), we
indicated that we intended to address the boundary change issue in a
separate rulemaking. This notice constitutes that separate rulemaking.

II. Gila River Indian Community's Request for a Boundary Change

    On March 2, 2005, the Gila River Indian Community, a federally-
recognized tribal government,\5\ adopted and submitted a resolution
requesting EPA to revise the boundary for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River Indian
Reservation.\6\ The Gila River Indian Community's request includes
background information regarding the procedural history leading to the
designation of the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour oxidants
(then ozone) nonattainment area, an analysis of air quality monitoring
data existing at the time of and subsequent to the original designation
in 1978, and a description of population, employment, land use, and
traffic associated with the Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 67 FR 46328, 46329 (July 12, 2002).
    \6\ As noted previously, the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area includes the portion of the Reservation that lies
within Maricopa County, approximately the northern 25 percent of the
Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Gila River Indian Community concludes that inclusion of the
Maricopa County portion of the Reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment area was incorrect based on air quality
considerations at the time of the original designation and that
continued inclusion of the Reservation in the nonattainment area will
frustrate their current efforts to regulate air quality on their own
lands through preparation, adoption, and implementation of a
comprehensive Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). The Community's request
and supporting documentation are included in the docket for this
action.

III. EPA Review of the Gila River Indian Community's Request

A. CAA Authority To Correct Area Designations

    Section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act provides, ``Whenever the
Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving,
disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part
thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification, or
reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner
as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as
appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State.
Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State
and public.'' We interpret this provision to authorize the Agency to
make corrections to a promulgated regulation when it is shown to our
satisfaction that (1) we clearly erred in failing to consider or in
inappropriately considering information made available to EPA at the
time of the promulgation, or the information made available at the time
of promulgation is subsequently demonstrated to have been clearly
inadequate, and (2) other information persuasively supports a change in
the regulation. See 57 FR 56762, at 56763 (November 30, 1992).
    We have reviewed the documentation submitted by the Gila River
Indian Community, and based on that review and an independent
assessment of the air quality data and circumstances behind our actions
designating, redesignating or affirming air quality planning areas for
the oxidants and ozone NAAQS, we agree with the Gila River Indian
Community that a correction of the boundary to exclude the Gila River
Indian Reservation from the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area is warranted. Our rationale is provided in the
following subsections.

B. General Physical Description of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and
Environs 7

    The Phoenix metropolitan area is in south-central Arizona. The area
occupies an almost-flat alluvial plain studded and surrounded by hills,
buttes, and mountain ranges. The elevation of the valley floor is
approximately 1,100 feet. The dominating mountain ranges around the
area include the Sierra Estrella Mountains to the southwest, the White
Tank Mountains to the west; the Hieroglyphic and New River Mountains to
the north; the Superstition and Goldfield and Mazatzal Mountains to the
east; and the Santan and Sacaton Mountains to the southeast. Elevations
range from 3,000 feet in the southeast, to 4,000 feet in the west and
southwest, and to 5,000 to 7,000 feet in the north and east. The
principal natural drainages are the Salt River, the Agua Fria River,
and the Gila River. The Gila River carves a route between the South
Mountains and the Sierra Estrella Mountains and is joined by the Salt
River near the northwest corner of the Gila River Indian Reservation.
The South Mountains rise to an elevation of approximately 2,700 feet
and partially separate the urbanized portions of the Phoenix
metropolitan area to the north from the Gila River Indian Reservation
to the south.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Sources of information for this section of the notice
include the Army Corps of Engineers' Phoenix Urban Study, Background
Information Appendix (February 1977) and the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's Final Serious Area Ozone State
Implementation Plan for Maricopa County (December 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The climate of the area varies depending on the occurrence of the
natural topographic features but is generally a warm, desert type
climate with low annual rainfall and low relative humidity. Summers are
usually long and hot, winters short and mild, with gradual temperature
transitions in the spring and fall seasons.
    The most significant terrain, in term of influence on local wind
flow, is located to the north and east of the Phoenix area. During the
morning and afternoon, sunlight warms this terrain causing the air
immediately above it to rise and pull air from the lower

elevations in the direction of the higher terrain to replace the rising
air. In Phoenix, this ``valley'' breeze (up-valley flow) usually begins
around noon with a west wind that persists until midnight. After
sunset, under clear sky conditions, the surface undergoes radiative
cooling, lowering the temperatures of the air above it and reversing
the flow. The ``mountain'' breeze (down-valley flow), which is out of
the east for most of the Phoenix area, begins about midnight and lasts
until noon, when the reversal to up-valley flow takes over.
    The systematic mountain-valley circulation over the Phoenix area
directs the timing and geographic distribution of ozone and its
precursors. Early morning commute emissions are slowly transported to
the west by drainage winds. By afternoon, the flow is reversed and
emissions are transported to the east, back over the urbanized area,
entraining additional surface emissions. During this period of ample
sunlight and precursor emissions, the conditions are conducive for
ozone formation. As the day progresses into late afternoon, ozone
continues to build and is further transported toward the higher
terrain, resulting in the maximum ozone concentration typically
monitored east or north of the urbanized area.

C. Contribution by Emission Sources on the Reservation

    In general, ambient ozone concentrations are caused by on-road and
nonroad mobile emissions sources, area sources, large stationary
sources and biogenic sources that emit ozone precursors (i.e., volatile
organic compounds, or VOC, and oxides of nitrogen oxides, or
NOX). The level of mobile source emissions, often the
largest part of the inventory in a major metropolitan area, can be
generally correlated to population density and land use patterns.
    The Gila River Indian Community has historically been, and
continues to be, primarily a rural, agricultural community with few
industrial uses and no major population centers. The Gila River Indian
Community has an on-Reservation population of approximately 11,300
people, of which approximately 2,700 people live in the Maricopa County
portion of the Reservation. The on-Reservation population density is
approximately 20 persons per square mile. By comparison, the population
living within the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone area as a whole is
approximately 3 million people with a population density of
approximately 1,500 persons per square mile, and there are at least six
major population centers in the Phoenix nonattainment area, including
Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale, Glendale, Tempe, and Chandler. Thus,
emissions generated by uses on the Reservation can be assumed to have
essentially no effect on ambient ozone concentrations in the urbanized
portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area.\8\ Our assumption in this
regard is supported by emissions inventory estimates prepared by the
Gila River Indian Reservation from which we find that ozone precursor
emissions associated with the Maricopa County portion of the
Reservation represent less than 0.2% and 0.6% of VOC and NOX
emissions, respectively, of total estimated ozone precursor emissions
generated within the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The State of Arizona's Nonattainment Area Plan for Carbon
Monoxide and Photochemical Oxidants, Maricopa County, Urban Planning
Area (revised February 16, 1979) was based in part on traffic
assignments in the MAG primary planning area, which essentially
excludes the Maricopa County portion of the Reservation (see
footnote 3, above), rather than the larger urban planning
area (that defines the nonattainment area and that includes all of
the Maricopa County portion of the Reservation) but justified the
use of traffic assignments from the smaller area by concluding that
the additional long-range fringe development would contribute
negligibly to the highest carbon monoxide and ozone concentrations
measured in central Phoenix. EPA approved this plan in 1982. See 47
FR 19326 (May 5, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Oxidants/Ozone Air Quality Conditions on the Reservation

    The oxidants/ozone designations for the MAG urban planning area in
1978 and 1979 were based on ambient air quality data collected at a
small number of monitoring stations located within the urbanized
portions of Maricopa County.\9\ During the 1970's, there was no
monitoring station located on the Gila River Indian Reservation. During
this period, the ozone monitoring station that was closest to the Gila
River Indian Reservation was the ``South Phoenix'' station located at
4732 South Central Avenue. The South Phoenix station is located north
of the South Mountains while the Reservation lies south of that range.
The distance between the South Phoenix station and the closest
Reservation boundary is approximately eight miles. We believe that the
South Phoenix monitor provides data that is sufficiently representative
of conditions in the Maricopa County portion of the Reservation to
justify its use for the purposes of this correction notice although we
recognize that ozone concentrations would generally be expected to
decrease with increasing distance in a southerly direction from the
Phoenix urbanized area given the prevailing mountain-valley (i.e.,
east-west) wind circulation characteristic of the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ No oxidants/ozone dispersion modeling was conducted during
this period; instead, the demonstrations of attainment in the
various plans relied upon a linear rollback technique.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database and the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality's Nonattainment Area Plan for
Carbon Monoxide and Photochemical Oxidants, Maricopa County Urban
Planning Area (revised February 16, 1979) reveals that (1) violations
of the oxidants NAAQS (0.08 ppm, hourly average) were recorded at the
South Phoenix station during the 1975-1978 period, (2) no violations of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppm) were recorded at the South Phoenix
station during this same period, (3) maximum ozone levels at the South
Phoenix station were generally less than those at the four other
stations that were operating continuously through this same period.
Thus, the available data supports the conclusion that, during the mid-
to late-1970's, while the Maricopa County portion of the Reservation
may well have experienced violations of the oxidants NAAQS, it did not
experience violations of the less stringent 1-hour ozone NAAQS. From
1979 through 2004, exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS were measured
on only 5 days at the South Phoenix station: one day in 1981, two days
in 1983, one day in 1990 and one day in 1995.
    Since mid-2002, the Gila River Indian Community has operated an
ozone monitoring station within the Maricopa County portion of the
Reservation (the St. Johns station) and another in the Pinal County
portion of the Reservation (the Sacaton station). Data have been
collected at these stations from mid-2002 through the end of the 2004
ozone season. No exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS have been
recorded at either station.

E. Ozone Planning Issues

    Ozone planning efforts for the Phoenix metropolitan area began in
earnest in the mid-1970's at the direction of the Phoenix AQMA Task
Force, including the identification and evaluation of control
strategies focused on the AQMA study area. The Phoenix AQMA Task Force
included representatives from EPA and various State and local agencies
as well as representatives from certain non-governmental entities such
as the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters. The
Gila River Indian Community, however, was not a member of the AQMA Task
Force nor is there any evidence that suggests that the community's
views or concerns were

taken into account in identification of the appropriate study area, the
analysis of air quality conditions and projects, or in the
identification and evaluation of possible control strategies, which is
documented in a final report entitled, Air Quality Maintenance Analysis
in Phoenix, Arizona (July 1977).
    Likewise, there is no evidence that suggests that the Gila River
Indian Community was consulted by EPA, the State of Arizona, or MAG
\10\ in the decision-making process leading to the nonattainment
designation first on a county-wide basis for oxidants under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977, then on a MAG urban planning area boundary
basis for the oxidants NAAQS (and later affirmed for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS). Ever since this time, the Gila River Indian Reservation has
been split into two air quality planning areas for the purposes of the
1-hour ozone NAAQS: a Maricopa County portion that is part of a
nonattainment area and a Pinal County portion that is part of an
``unclassifiable/attainment'' area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Gila River Indian Community became a member of MAG in
November of 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the late 1970's, EPA has approved various State and local
regulations and other control measures that have helped to attain the
1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area and
that provided the basis upon which EPA recently approved the State's
redesignation request for the area to ``attainment.'' See 70 FR 34362
(June 14, 2005). It is important to note that, under the CAA, the State
and local air pollution control agencies do not have authority to
administer air regulatory programs over the Reservation; consequently,
the SIP rules that have been adopted and implemented within the non-
Tribal portions of the Phoenix metropolitan area and that have provided
for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS do not apply within the Gila
River Indian Reservation. Furthermore, due to the Reservation's lack of
ozone precursor sources, it was never considered necessary to apply
ozone precursor limits to sources on the Reservation.
    In 2004, we designated all areas of the country as nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). In contrast to the process undertaken in
connection with the area designations established in the late 1970's,
we made a significant effort to consult with the Tribes on the
appropriate designations for their lands for the new (8-hour) ozone
NAAQS. In our final rule establishing area designations for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, we agreed with the Gila River Indian Community that the
Reservation, including both Maricopa and Pinal County portions, should
be included in the larger area designation of ``unclassifiable/
attainment.'' Thus, in contrast to the status of the Reservation
relative to the 1-hour ozone designations, the Gila River Indian
Reservation is not split into different air quality planning areas for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and no part of the Reservation is included in
the Phoenix metropolitan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
    Under phase 1 of our 8-hour ozone implementation rule, areas
designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
that were designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the
time of the initial 8-hour ozone designation (i.e., mid-2004) are
subject to certain requirements (such as a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery, and a clean fuels fleet
program) that applied by virtue of their 1-hour ozone nonattainment
status and that continue to apply even after revocation of the 1-hour
ozone standard (which occurred on June 15, 2005). These areas are also
subject to a requirement to prepare and submit a plan that provides for
continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years following
designation and that includes contingency measures. See 40 CFR
51.900(f), 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3), 69 FR 23951, at 23979 (April 30, 2004)
and 70 FR 30592 (May 26, 2005). The Maricopa County portion of the Gila
River Indian Reservation is one of the areas that was designated as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS but, at the time
of that designation, was designated ``nonattainment'' for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    On June 14, 2005, we redesignated the Phoenix ``serious'' 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area (including the Maricopa County portion of the
Gila River Indian Reservation) to attainment, and our redesignation was
predicated on our finding that all applicable requirements for that
nonattainment area had been met. See 70 FR 34362 (June 14, 2005).
However, because none of the State and local adopted control measures
that were relied upon for redesignation apply within the Gila River
Indian Reservation, the obligation to adopt (at least as contingency
measures) the requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.900(f) that apply within
former ``serious'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas (such as an
enhanced inspection and maintenance program, stage II vapor recovery,
and a clean fuels fleet program) remains in effect for the Maricopa
County portion of the Reservation, notwithstanding the redesignation of
the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour nonattainment area to attainment, and
notwithstanding the revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on June 15,
2005. In addition, the Maricopa County portion of the Reservation is
subject to the requirement under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) to prepare and
submit a plan that provides for continued maintenance of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for 10 years following designation and that includes
contingency measures. See EPA Memorandum dated May 20, 2005:
``Maintenance Plan Guidance for Certain 8-Hour Ozone Areas Under
Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act.''
    Meanwhile, the Gila River Indian Community is in the final stages
of preparing, adopting and submitting a Tribal Implementation Plan
(TIP) to EPA for approval. The TIP contains several ordinances
including permit requirements and fees; administrative appeals
procedures; enforcement provisions (civil and criminal); and controls
on non-metallic mineral mining; secondary aluminum processing
operations; solvent metal cleaning; VOC usage, storage and handling;
aerospace manufacturing and rework processes; and open burning and
visible emissions. As such, the Gila River Indian Community is
developing a comprehensive air quality regulatory program, but the
Community is doing so with the view that their historic inclusion in
the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area was erroneous.
EPA supports the Community's efforts to manage its own air quality
regulatory program through development, adoption and implementation of
the TIP and recognizes that the control measure and planning
antibacksliding obligations that apply to the Maricopa County portion
of the Reservation under our phase 1 implementation rule for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (by virtue of its inclusion within the Phoenix metropolitan
1-hour ozone nonattainment area) represent an obstacle to the
Community's objectives in this regard.

F. Evaluation and Conclusion

    Based on the historic ambient monitoring data and prevailing wind
patterns in the area, we conclude that we clearly erred in failing to
consider data made available at the time of our September 1979
affirmation of the preexisting oxidants nonattainment area boundary
(i.e., the MAG urban planning

area) as the geographic basis for the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area.\11\ Our September 1979 action affirming the
oxidants nonattainment area boundary for the purposes of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS had the effect of including a portion of the Gila River
Indian Reservation (the Maricopa County portion) that was not
experiencing violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS into the larger
urbanized nonattainment area where violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
were relatively frequent and widespread and thereby unnecessarily
splitting the Reservation into two different air quality planning
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ With respect to our promulgation of a County-wide
designation for the oxidants NAAQS (in the March 1978) and our
approval of a reduction in the size of the oxidants nonattainment
area to conform to the MAG urban planning area boundary (in March
1979), we find that our inclusion of the Maricopa County portion of
the Gila River Indian Reservation in those areas, while
questionable, was not clearly in error because of the violations of
the oxidants NAAQS measured at the South Phoenix station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of this conclusion, we find that, had we considered the
available data for the purpose of determining whether the Reservation
should be included in the ozone nonattainment area (as opposed to the
oxidants nonattainment area), we would have concluded based on data
from the South Phoenix station and the prevailing mountain-valley
(east-west) wind circulation in the area that no part of the
Reservation was experiencing violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and
that affirming the pre-existing oxidants nonattainment boundary for the
purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and thereby continuing the split of
the Reservation into two air quality planning areas with different
designations would be inappropriate.
    We also find that other information persuasively supports a
correction in the boundary to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation
at this time: Namely, (1) The Reservation is not a significant source
area for ozone precursor emissions and thus has essentially no effect
on ambient ozone concentrations in the urbanized portions of the
Phoenix metropolitan area; (2) data from the South Phoenix station
indicates that ambient ozone levels on the Reservation, with the
possible exception of a period in the early 1980's, have never violated
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; (3) available ambient ozone data collected at
the two monitoring stations located on the Reservation indicate that
the area currently is not experiencing violations of the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS; and (4) the former nonattainment status of the Maricopa County
portion of the Reservation for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS will
unnecessarily complicate and frustrate the Gila River Indian
Community's development and implementation of a Tribal Implementation
Plan.

IV. Final Action

    Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(6) of the CAA and at the
request of the Gila River Indian Community, EPA is correcting the
boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to
exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation.\12\ This action revises the
description of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area
in the table entitled ``Arizona--Ozone (1-Hour Standard)'' in 40 CFR
81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In so doing, we note the similarities between our action
here and previous EPA actions in which we corrected 1-hour ozone
nonattainment designations that had originally been established for
the oxidants NAAQS and that were erroneously affirmed for the
purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 62 FR 14641 (March 27, 1997)
(direct final rule correcting ozone nonattainment designations in
New Hampshire and Maine); and 61 FR 5707 (February 14, 1996) (final
rule correcting ozone nonattainment designations in Michigan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not anticipate any objections to this action, so we are
finalizing the correction action without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing this same action to correct the boundary. If
we receive adverse comments by December 12, 2005, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the
direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do
not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final action will be
effective without further notice on January 9, 2006.
    The effect of this action is to attach the Maricopa County portion
of the Gila River Indian Reservation to the pre-existing
``unclassifiable/attainment'' area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that
consists of all of those portions of the State of Arizona (including
the rest of the Reservation that lies in Pinal County) that are not
designated as a ``nonattainment'' area or as an ``attainment'' area
subject to a maintenance plan. Also, this action relieves the Agency
and the Gila River Indian Community from any specific obligations that
flow from the former nonattainment status of the Maricopa County
portion of the Gila River Indian Reservation under our phase 1
implementation rule for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the
applicable requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.900(f) and the preparation
and submittal of a plan under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) that provides for
continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years following
designation and that includes contingency measures for that portion of
the Reservation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ While no longer subject to the specific maintenance plan
requirements under 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3), the Gila River Indian
Reservation, like other areas designated as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, remains subject to the
general requirement to provide for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS under section 110(a)(1) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely reduces the size of a nonattainment area for air quality
planning purposes.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
will not impose any direct requirements on small entities. EPA is
taking direct final action to correct the boundary of the Phoenix
metropolitan 1-hour ozone nonattainment area to exclude the Gila River
Indian Reservation. This action is intended to facilitate and support
the Gila River Indian Community's efforts to develop, adopt and
implement a comprehensive Tribal Implementation Plan by removing
unnecessary obligations that flow from the erroneous inclusion of a
portion of the Reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year.
    Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. In any
event, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), 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 action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely reduces the size of a nonattainment area
for air quality planning purposes and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
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'' are 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.''
    Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by
tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 5(c) of
Executive Order 13175, EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal
implications and that preempts tribal law, unless the Agency consults
with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed
regulation.
    EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications.
Representatives of the Gila River Indian Community approached EPA two
years ago and requested that EPA make this boundary correction.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA consulted with representatives of the
community early in the process of developing this action to permit them
to have meaningful and timely input into its development. We agree with
the technical and policy rationale that the community provided for this
boundary correction, and believe that all tribal concerns have been
met. EPA's action corrects the boundary of the Phoenix metropolitan 1-
hour ozone area to exclude the Gila River Indian Reservation. As such,
it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law. Thus, the requirements of sections
5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this rule present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.''
    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)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rule does not involve establishment of technical standards,
and thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply
to this action.

J. 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 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.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 9, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: November 3, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  81.303, the table entitled ``Arizona--Ozone (1-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Phoenix Area to
read as follows:

Sec.  81.303  Arizona.

* * * * *

                                                                     Arizona--Ozone
                                                                    [1-Hour Standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Designation                                           Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Area: Maricopa County (part)....      6/14/05  Attainment...............................
Phoenix nonattainment Forest area
 boundary:
    1. Commencing at a point which is
     the intersection of the eastern
     line of Range 7 East, Gila and Salt
     River Baseline and Meridian, and
     the southern line of Township 2
     South, said point is the
     southeastern corner of the Maricopa
     Association of Governments Urban
     Planning Area, which is the point
     of beginning;
    2. Thence, proceed northerly along
     the eastern line of Range 7 East
     which is the common boundary
     between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties, as described in Arizona
     Revised Statutes Section 11-109, to
     a point where the eastern line of
     Range 7 East intersects the
     northern line of Township 1 North,
     said point is also the intersection
     of the Maricopa County Line and the
     Tonto National Forest Boundary, as
     established by Executive Order 869
     dated July 1, 1908, as amended and
     shown on the U.S. Forest Service
     1969 Planimetric Maps;
    3. Thence, westerly along the
     northern line of Township 1 North
     to approximately the southwest
     corner of the southeast quarter of
     Section 35, Township 2 North, Range
     7 East, said point being the
     boundary of the Tonto National
     Forest and Usery Mountain Semi-
     Regional Park;
    4. Thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the western line of the
     east half of Sections 26 and 35 of
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East, to
     a point which is where the quarter
     section line intersects with the
     northern line of Section 26,
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East,
     said point also being the northeast
     corner of the Usery Mountain Semi-
     Regional Park;
    5. Thence, westerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary, which is
     generally the south line of
     Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 and the
     southern line of the west half of
     Section 23, Township 2 North, Range
     7 East, to a point which is the
     southwest corner of Section 19,
     Township 2 North, Range 7 East;
    6. Thence, northerly along the Tonto
     National Forest Boundary to a point
     where the Tonto National Forest
     Boundary intersects with the
     eastern boundary of the Salt River
     Indian Reservation, generally
     described as the center line of the
     Salt River Channel;
    7. Thence, northeasterly and
     northerly along the common boundary
     of the Tonto National Forest and
     the Salt River Indian Reservation
     to a point which is the northeast
     corner of the Salt River Indian
     Reservation and the southeast
     corner of the Fort McDowell Indian
     Reservation, as shown on the plat
     dated July 22, 1902, and recorded
     with the U.S. Government on June
     15, 1902;
    8. Thence, northeasterly along the
     common boundary between the Tonto
     National Forest and the Fort
     McDowell Indian Reservation to a
     point which is the northeast corner
     of the Fort McDowell Indian
     Reservation;
    9. Thence, southwesterly along the
     northern boundary of the Fort
     McDowell Indian Reservation, which
     line is a common boundary with the
     Tonto National Forest, to a point
     where the boundary intersects with
     the eastern line of Section 12,
     Township 4 North, Range 6 East;

    10. Thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 6 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 6 East intersects with the
     southern line of Township 5 North,
     said line is the boundary between
     the Tonto National Forest and the
     east boundary of McDowell Mountain
     Regional Park;
    11. Thence, westerly along the
     southern line of Township 5 North
     to a point where the southern line
     intersects with the eastern line of
     Range 5 East which line is the
     boundary of Tonto National Forest
     and the north boundary of McDowell
     Mountain Regional Park;
    12. Thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 5 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 5 East intersects with the
     northern line of Township 5 North,
     which line is the boundary of the
     Tonto National Forest;
    13. Thence, westerly along the
     northern line of Township 5 North
     to a point where the northern line
     of Township 5 North intersects with
     the easterly line of Range 4 East,
     said line is the boundary of Tonto
     National Forest;
    14. Thence, northerly along the
     eastern line of Range 4 East to a
     point where the eastern line of
     Range 4 East intersects with the
     northern line of Township 6 North,
     which line is the boundary of the
     Tonto National Forest;
    15. Thence, westerly along the
     northern line of Township 6 North
     to a point of intersection with the
     Maricopa-Yavapai County line, which
     is generally described in Arizona
     Revised Statutes Section 11-109 as
     the center line of the Aqua Fria
     River (Also the north end of Lake
     Pleasant);
    16. Thence, southwesterly and
     southerly along the Maricopa-
     Yavapai County line to a point
     which is described by Arizona
     Revised Statutes Section 11-109 as
     being on the center line of the
     Aqua Fria River, two miles
     southerly and below the mouth of
     Humbug Creek;
    17. Thence, southerly along the
     center line of Aqua Fria River to
     the intersection of the center line
     of the Aqua Fria River and the
     center line of Beardsley Canal,
     said point is generally in the
     northeast quarter of Section 17,
     Township 5 North, Range 1 East, as
     shown on the U.S. Geological
     Survey's Baldy Mountain, Arizona
     Quadrangle Map, 7.5 Minute series
     (Topographic), dated 1964;
    18. Thence, southwesterly and
     southerly along the center line of
     Beardsley Canal to a point which is
     the center line of Beardsley Canal
     where it intersects with the center
     line of Indian School Road;
    19. Thence, westerly along the
     center line of West Indian School
     Road to a point where the center
     line of West Indian School Road
     intersects with the center line of
     North Jackrabbit Trail;
    20. Thence, southerly along the
     center line of Jackrabbit Trail
     approximately nine and three-
     quarter miles to a point where the
     center line of Jackrabbit Trail
     intersects with the Gila River,
     said point is generally on the
     north-south quarter section line of
     Section 8, Township 1 South, Range
     2 West;
    21. Thence, northeasterly and
     easterly up the Gila River to a
     point where the Gila River
     intersects with the northern
     extension of the western boundary
     of Estrella Mountain Regional Park,
     which point is generally the
     quarter corner of the northern line
     of Section 31, Township 1 North,
     Range 1 West;

    22. Thence, southerly along the
     extension of the western boundary
     and along the western boundary of
     Estrella Mountain Regional Park to
     a point where the southern
     extension of the western boundary
     of Estrella Mountain Regional Park
     intersects with the southern line
     of Township 1 South;
    23. Thence, easterly along the
     southern line of Township 1 South
     to a point where the south line of
     Township 1 South intersects with
     the western line of Range 1 East,
     which line is generally the
     southern boundary of Estrella
     Mountain Regional Park;
    24. Thence, southerly along the
     western line of Range 1 East to the
     southwest corner of Section 18,
     Township 2 South, Range 1 East,
     said line is the western boundary
     of the Gila River Indian
     Reservation;
    25. Thence, easterly along the
     southern boundary of the Gila River
     Indian Reservation which is the
     southern line of Sections 13, 14,
     15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 2
     South, Range 1 East, to the
     boundary between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties as described in Arizona
     Revised Statutes Sections 11-109
     and 11-113, which is the eastern
     line of Range 1 East;
    26. Thence, northerly along the
     eastern boundary of Range 1 East,
     which is the common boundary
     between Maricopa and Pinal
     Counties, to a point where the
     eastern line of Range 1 East
     intersects the Gila River;
    27. Thence, southerly up the Gila
     River to a point where the Gila
     River intersects with the southern
     line of Township 2 South;
    28. Thence, easterly along the
     southern line of Township 2 South
     to the point of beginning which is
     a point where the southern line of
     Township 2 South intersects with
     the eastern line Range 7 East;
    29. Except that portion of the area
     defined by paragraphs 1 through 28
     above that lies within the Gila
     River Indian Reservation.

                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is October 18, 2000 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-22371 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Request for Information  -  Low Emissions Electricity Program & GHG Corporate Reporting

Docket 6: Low Emissions Electricity Program & GHG Corporate Reporting [60107, 60111]

Low Emissions Electricity Program [60107]

Funding includes $87 million to fund a wide range of activities to encourage low emissions electricity generation through education, technical assistance, and partnerships with consumers, low income and disadvantaged communities, industry, and state, local, and Tribal governments.

QUESTIONS:

          What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would best support low-income and disadvantaged communities in reducing GHGs associated with electricity generation and use?
          What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would best incentivize efficient electrification in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors to reduce GHG emissions?
          What types of education, technical assistance, and partnerships that EPA could provide would be most beneficial to your efforts to advance GHG emission reductions related to electricity generation and use?
          Do you see any analytic or data gaps that EPA could address through this program to both accurately identify mitigation measures delivering the most significant emission reductions for electricity generation and use as well as measure success to ensure accountability?

GHG Corporate Reporting [60111]

Funding includes $5 million to enhance standardization and transparency of corporate climate action commitments and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance transparency regarding progress toward meeting such commitments and implementing such plans, and make progress toward meeting such commitments and implementing such plans.

QUESTIONS:

          What are the areas where EPA could provide the most value to corporate target setting and tracking?
          What, if any, enhanced standardization around setting corporate climate commitments would be of value?
          How can EPA help transparently track progress towards companies' stated climate commitments?
          How can EPA help support companies in meeting their commitments and implementing their plans?

Responses must be received by 11:59 PM ET on January 18, 2023:: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0878, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. You do not need to address every question and should focus on those where you have relevant expertise or experience. Please identify the question(s) you are responding to by question number when submitting your comments. 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. In all cases, to the extent possible, please cite any public data related to or that support your responses. If data are available, but non-public, describe such data to the extent permissible. 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


Dec. 8-9, 2015
PubLic Workshop

Sewage Treatment Technology

Hosted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Sewage and Greywater

Regulatory Regimes

Inspection and Enforcement

Treatment Technologies

Equipment Operation and Monitoring

U.S. Deptartment of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590
Conference Rooms 8, 9, 10
9:30 am  -  4:00 pm

                                     DAY 1
9:30  -  10:00 AM
Wayne Lundy
U.S. Coast Guard

Katherine Weiler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Introductions
 Goal of Public Workshop
 Agenda review
 Facilities
 Restaurants
10:00  -  10:45 AM
Presentation & Discussion
Dr. Wei Chen
Wärtsilä
Sewage and Greywater
 What is sewage and greywater?
 Types of vessels, volume of the discharges
 Environmental impacts of discharges
10:45  -  12:15 AM
Presentations & Discussion
Katherine Weiler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Wayne Lundy
U.S. Coast Guard
Edward White
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Regulatory Regime
 Domestic: U.S. Regulations
 Clean Water Act 312 (MSDs & NDZs)
 Clean Water Act 402 (VGP)
 33 CFR 159

 International: MARPOL Annex IV
 Summary
 Recent changes
 NVIC 1-09
 Alaska Regulations
12:15  -  1:15 PM
LUNCH
1:30  -  2:15 PM
Presentation & Discussion
U.S. Coast Guard
Office of Compliance
Inspection and Enforcement
 Number of annual inspections of MSDs
 The nature of inspections
 Findings and enforcement actions
2:15  -  3:45 PM
Presentations & Discussion

Wärtsilä
ROCHEM
Scanship
Sewage and Greywater Treatment Technologies

3:45  -  4:00 PM
Wayne Lundy
U.S. Coast Guard
Closing Remarks

                                     DAY 2
9:30  -  11:00 AM
Presentations & Discussion
Matthew MacGregor
Testing Engineers International (TEI)

Markus Joswig
Prüfinstitut für Abwassertechnik GmbH (PIA)

Technology Testing and Type Approval Process
 Mechanical Test procedures and equipment
 Biological & Chemical Test procedures and instruments
 Application documentation review (Instruction Manuals, Quality Control Manuals, Drawings, Electrical Drawings, Bill of Material list, etc.)
 46 CFR Subchapter F & J design and implementation requirements
 Shipboard vs. Land Based Testing
 Issues concerning testing of marine sanitation devices for type approval
      ------------------------------------------
 On board simple checks for verifying performance of marine sanitation devices (by inspectors & shipowners)
11:00  -  11:30 PM
Morning Break
11:30  -  12:30 AM
Facilitated Discussion
Wayne Lundy
U.S. Coast Guard

Dr. Wei Chen
Wärtsilä
Post Approval  -  MSD/AWTS Operation (Discussion)
 On board simple checks
 Installation and Retrofitting (ship capacity)
 Equipment issues / failures
12:30  -  1:30 PM
LUNCH
1:45  -  3:00 PM
Facilitated Discussion
Wayne Lundy
U.S. Coast Guard

Katherine Weiler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Related Issues
 On board monitoring/reporting
 Revision of ASTM F2363 - "Standard Specification for Sewage and Greywater Flow Through Treatment Systems"
 Revising existing federal standards to align with MARPOL Annex IV equipment standards (resolution MEPC.227(64))
 No Discharge Zones
 Other


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14846-14848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05704]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9957-99]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified the docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Michael L.
Goodis, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address
for each contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated

the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 5E8439. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0066). Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road Indianapolis, IN 46268, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.638 for residues of the herbicide,
pyroxsulam, in or on teff, grain at 0.01 ppm, teff, forage at 0.06 ppm,
teff, hay at 0.01 ppm, and teff, straw at 0.03 ppm. The Dow
AgroSciences Method GRM 04/17 is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical residues of pyroxsulam in wheat commodities. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 6E8496. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516). Interregional Research
Project No.4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.478 for
residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on berry, low growing,
except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 0.01 parts per million (ppm),
fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
0.01 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm, nut, tree, group 14-12
at 0.01 ppm, vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm,
fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at
0.01 ppm, and tolerances with regional restrictions in or on fescue,
forage at 0.01 ppm; fescue, hay at 0.01 ppm; ryegrass, perennial, hay
at 0.01 ppm, and ryegrass, perennial, forage at 0.01 ppm. Analytical
methodology, high-pressure liquid chromatography with Electrospray
Ionization/tandem Mass Spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS) detection, is available
for enforcement purposes. The two methods are ``Analytical Method for
the Determination of Rimsulfuron in Watery and Dry Crop Matrices by
High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)/ESI-MS/MS'', DuPont
Report 15033 and ``Analytical Method for the Determination of
Rimsulfuron in Oily Crop Matrices by HPLC/ESI-MS/MS'', DuPont Report
15027. The limit of quantitation for rimsulfuron with these methods, in
raw agricultural commodities and in processed fractions, is 0.01 ppm.
Contact RD
    3. PP 6E8510. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0651). Interregional Research
Project No.4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.458 for
residues of the sum of the herbicide clethodim, 2-[(1E)-1-[[[(2E)-3-
chloro-2-propenyl]oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-
2-cyclohexen-1-one, and its metabolites containing the 5-(2-
ethylthiopropyl)cyclohexene-3-one and 5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)-5-
hydroxycyclohexene-3-one moieties and their sulphoxides and sulphones,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of clethodim, in or on in
or on the raw agricultural commodities: almond, hulls at 0.2 parts per
million (ppm); brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 3.0 ppm; leaf
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 0.60 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A
at 2.0 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.2 ppm; okra at 1.5 ppm; onion,
green, subgroup 3-07B at 2.0 ppm; stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A
at 1.7 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 3.0 ppm;
and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, except okra at 1.0 ppm. Practical
analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of clethodim have
been developed and validated in/on all appropriate agricultural
commodities and respective processing fractions. The LOQ of clethodim
in the methods is 0.2 ppm, which will allow monitoring of food with
residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 6F8512. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0649). Nisso America Inc., on behalf
of Nippon Soda Co., Ltd., 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, New York, NY
10005, requests to establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.667 for
residues of the fungicide, cyflufenamid, in or on cherry (crop sub-
group 12-12A) at 0.6 ppm, fruiting vegetables (crop group 8-10) at 0.2
ppm, and hops at 5.0 ppm. A method was developed using solvent
extraction of cyflufenamid from crops and analyzing sample extracts by
LC/MS/MS. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 6E8496. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516). Inter-regional Research
Project No.4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend the tolerance(s) in 40 CFR part 180.478 upon
establishment of tolerances under PP 6E8496 of ``New Tolerances''
referenced above, by removing existing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide rimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]
carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide, including its
metabolites and degradates in or on fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.01
ppm; fruit, pome group 11 at 0.01 ppm; fruit, stone group 12 at 0.01
ppm; grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree group 14 at 0.01 ppm; pistachio at
0.01 ppm; and potato at 0.10 ppm. Analytical methodology, high-pressure
liquid chromatography with ESI-MS/MS detection, is available for
enforcement purposes. The two methods are ``Analytical Method for the
Determination of Rimsulfuron in Watery and Dry Crop Matrices by HPLC/
ESI-MS/MS'', DuPont Report 15033 and ``Analytical Method for the
Determination of Rimsulfuron in Oily Crop Matrices by HPLC/ESI-MS/MS'',
DuPont Report 15027. The limit of quantitation for rimsulfuron with
these methods, in raw agricultural commodities and in processed
fractions, is 0.01 ppm. Contact RD
    2. PP 6E8510. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0651). Inter-regional Research
Project No.4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend the tolerance(s) in 40 CFR part 180.458 upon
establishment of tolerances under ``New Tolerances'' PP 6E8510
referenced above, by removing established tolerances superseded by this
action for residues of the sum of the herbicide clethodim, 2-[(1E)-1-
[[[(2E)-3-chloro-2-propenyl]oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-
3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one, and its metabolites containing the 5-(2-
ethylthiopropyl)cyclohexene-3-one and 5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)-5-
hydroxycyclohexene-3-one moieties and their sulphoxides and sulphones,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of clethodim in or on the
raw agricultural commodities asparagus at 1.7 ppm; brassica, head and
stem, subgroup 5A at 3.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at
3.0 ppm; leaf petioles subgroup 4B at 0.60 ppm; leafy greens subgroup
4A at 2.0 ppm; onion, green at 2.0 ppm; turnip, greens at 3.0

ppm; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm. Practical
analytical methods for detecting and measuring levels of clethodim have
been developed and validated in/on all appropriate agricultural
commodities and respective processing fractions. The Limit of
Quantitation (LOQ) of clethodim in the methods is 0.2 ppm, which will
allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the
tolerances. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP 6G8523. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457). J.R. Simplot Company, 5369 W.
Irving St., Boise, ID 83706, requests to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 174.534 for residues of the plant-
incorporated protectant (PIP) VNT1 protein in or on potato. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed for enforcement
purposes because the VNT1 protein concentration is lower than the
detectable limit of 100 parts per billion (ppb) in tubers. As the
expression levels of the VNT1 protein are below detection limits, it is
impractical to demonstrate methods for detecting and measuring the
levels of the pesticide residues. Contact: BPPD.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: January 11, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-05704 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P