[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8729-8734]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02582]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0488; FRL-10017-25-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the
Clearfield/Indiana Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision pertains to the
Commonwealth's plan, submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), for maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (referred to as the
``1997 ozone NAAQS'') in the Clearfield/Indiana, Pennsylvania Area.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0488 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Nichols, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms.
Nichols can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 27, 2020, the PADEP submitted a
revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area through April 20,
2029, in accordance with CAA section 175A.

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\1\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
the Clearfield/Indiana Area as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The Clearfield/Indiana Area consists of Clearfield and Indiana Counties
in Pennsylvania.
    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\2\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well as
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 19, 2009 (74 FR 11674), EPA approved a redesignation
request (and maintenance plan) from PADEP for the Clearfield/Indiana
Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth year
after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer needed to submit
second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\3\ However,
in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \4\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's

interpretation that, because of the revocation of the 1997 ozone
standard, second maintenance plans were not required for ``orphan
maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like the Clearfield/Indiana Area)
that had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, states with
these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997 ozone NAAQS must
submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The 1992 Calcagni Memo \5\
provides that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either
performing air quality modeling to show that the future mix of sources
and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by
showing that future emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will
not exceed the level of emissions during a year when the area was
attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment year inventory). See 1992
Calcagni Memo at p. 9. EPA further clarified in three subsequent
guidance memos describing ``limited maintenance plans'' (LMPs) \6\ that
the requirements of CAA section 175A could be met by demonstrating that
the area's design value \7\ was well below the NAAQS and that the
historical stability of the area's air quality levels showed that the
area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future. Specifically, EPA
believes that if the most recent air quality design value for the area
is at a level that is below 85% of the standard, or in this case below
0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the state to have met the section 175A
requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for the requisite period. Accordingly, on February 27, 2020, PADEP
submitted the Clearfield/Indiana Area second maintenance plan,
following EPA's LMP guidance and demonstrating that the area will
maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through April 20, 2029, i.e., through the
entire 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (1992 Calcagni Memo).
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \7\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    PADEP's February 27, 2020 SIP submittal outlines a plan for
continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the
criteria set forth in the 1992 Calcagni Memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive and
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year which
identifies the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to
maintain the NAAQS. The inventory should be developed consistent with
EPA's most recent guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on
typical summer day's emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In
the first maintenance plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area, PADEP used
2004 for the attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of the
years in the 2004-2006 three-year period when the area first attained
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\8\ The Clearfield/Indiana Area continued to
monitor attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the
emissions inventory from 2014 represents emissions levels conducive to
continued attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, PADEP is
using 2014 as representing attainment level emissions for its second
maintenance plan. Pennsylvania used 2014 summer day emissions from
EPA's 2014 version 7.0 modeling platform as the basis for the 2014
inventory presented in Table 1.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information, see EPA's March 19, 2009 document
proposing to redesignate the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (73 FR 43733).
    \9\ For more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/ozone_1997_naaqs_emiss_inv_data_nov_19_2018_0.xlsx.

       Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day NOX and VOC Emissions for the Clearfield/Indiana Area in Tons/Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                NOX emissions
                   County                              Source category                             VOC emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearfield.................................  Point..............................            0.14           13.16
                                             Nonpoint...........................           18.44            1.52
                                             Onroad.............................            2.43            8.42
                                             Nonroad............................            1.30            0.67
Indiana....................................  Point..............................            0.73          105.90
                                             Nonpoint...........................           43.89            2.00
                                             Onroad.............................            1.70            3.47
                                             Nonroad............................            0.80            0.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data shown in Table 1 is based on the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) version 2.\10\ The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources,
stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile
sources. Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential
to emit more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50 tpy
of NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating
permit. Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported
to PADEP. Examples of

point sources include kraft mills, electrical generating units, and
pharmaceutical factories. Nonpoint sources include emissions from
equipment, operations, and activities that are numerous and in total
have significant emissions. Examples include emissions from commercial
and consumer products, portable fuel containers, home heating, repair
and refinishing operations, and crematories. The onroad emissions
sector includes emissions from engines used primarily to propel
equipment on highways and other roads, including passenger vehicles,
motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The nonroad emissions sector
includes emissions from engines that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment, such as generators, forklifts, and marine
pleasure craft. EPA reviewed the emissions inventory submitted by PADEP
and proposes to conclude that the plan's inventory is acceptable for
the purposes of a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section
175A(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources. The NEI is released every
three years based primarily upon data provided by State, Local, and
Tribal air agencies for sources in their jurisdictions and
supplemented by data developed by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentration (design value, or
``DV'') at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based
on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 ppm or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document as well as EPA's November 20, 2018 ``Resource Document
for 1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas: Supporting Information for States
Developing Maintenance Plans'' (2018 Resource Document),\11\ EPA
believes that if the most recent DV for the area is well below the
NAAQS (e.g., below 85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm), the section
175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided that prevention
of significant deterioration requirements, any control measures already
in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place through the end of
the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a showing consistent with
section 110(l) that such measures are not necessary to assure
maintenance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This resource document is included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0488 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-11/documents/ozone_1997_naaqs_lmp_resource_document_nov_20_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of demonstrating continued maintenance with the
1997 ozone NAAQS, PADEP provided 3-year DVs at monitors located in the
Clearfield/Indiana Area from 2007 to 2018. This includes DVs at
monitors for 2005-2007, 2006-2008, 2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011,
2010-2012, 2011-2013, 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and
2016-2018, which are shown in Table 2 of this document.\12\ In
addition, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient air quality
monitoring data for ozone in the Clearfield/Indiana Area, as submitted
by Pennsylvania and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System. The most
recent DVs (i.e., 2017-2019) at monitors located in the Clearfield/
Indiana Area are also shown in Table 2.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also Table II-2 of PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal,
included in the docket for this rulemaking available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0488.
    \13\ This data is also included in the docket for this
rulemaking available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket
ID: EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0488 and is also available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.

                              Table 2--1997 Ozone NAAQS Design Values in Parts per Million for the Clearfield/Indiana Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2005-   2006-   2007-   2008-   2009-   2010-   2011-   2012-   2013-   2014-   2015-   2016-   2017-
            County                 AQS site ID     2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012    2013    2014    2015    2016    2017    2018    2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearfield....................  42-033-4000.....    .076    .073    .071    .073    .072    .074    .071    .066    .065    .064    .066    .064   0.060
Indiana.......................  42-063-0004.....    .080    .076    .073    .074    .073    .079    .075    .074    .071    .070    .070    .069   0.067
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Table 2, DVs at all monitors located in the
Clearfield/Indiana Area have been below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., 0.071 ppm) since the 2014-2016 period. The highest DV for the
2017-2019 period at a monitor in the Clearfield/Indiana Area is 0.067
ppm, which is below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Additionally, states can support the demonstration of continued
maintenance by showing stable or improving air quality trends.
According to EPA's 2018 Resource Document, several kinds of analyses
can be performed by states wishing to make such a showing. One approach
is to take the most recent DV at a monitor located in the area and add
the maximum design value increase (over one or more consecutive years)
that has been observed in the area over the past several years. For an
area with multiple monitors, the highest of the most recent DVs should
be used. A sum that does not exceed the level of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
may be a good indicator of expected continued attainment. As shown in
Table 2 of this document, the largest increase in DVs at a monitor
located in the Clearfield/Indiana Area was 0.006 ppm, which occurred
between the 2009-2011 (0.073 ppm) and 2010-2012 (0.079 ppm) DVs at
monitoring site 42-063-0004. Adding 0.006 ppm to the highest DV for the
2017-2019 period (0.067 ppm) results in 0.073 ppm, a sum that is still
below the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    The Clearfield/Indiana Area has maintained air quality levels well
below the 1997 ozone NAAQS since the area first attained the NAAQS in
2006.\14\ Additional supporting information that the area is expected
to continue to maintain the standard can be found in projections of
future year DVs that EPA recently completed to assist states with the
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Those projections, made for the year 2023, show that the highest
DV at a monitor located in the Clearfield/Indiana Area is expected to
be 0.0654 ppm.\15\ Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that future
violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area are
unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As explained in EPA's March 19, 2009 document proposing to
redesignate the Clearfield/Indiana Area as attainment for the 1997
ozone NAAQS (74 FR 11674), the 2004-2006 DV for the Clearfield/
Indiana Area was 0.077 ppm.
    \15\ See U.S. EPA, ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document for the Updated 2023 Projected Ozone Design Values'',
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 2018,
available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/air-quality-modeling-technical-support-document-updated-2023-projected-ozone-design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in

order to verify the area's attainment status. In the February 27, 2020
submittal, PADEP commits to continue to operate their air monitoring
network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. PADEP also commits to track
the attainment status of the Clearfield/Indiana Area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS through the review of air quality and emissions data during the
second maintenance period. This includes an annual evaluation of
vehicles miles traveled and stationary source emissions data compared
to the assumptions included in the LMP. PADEP also states that it will
evaluate the periodic (i.e., every three years) emission inventories
prepared under EPA's Air Emission Reporting Requirements (40 CFR part
51, subpart A). Based on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether
any further emission control measures should be implemented for the
Clearfield/Indiana Area. EPA has analyzed the commitments in PADEP's
submittal and is proposing to determine that they meet the requirements
for continued air quality monitoring and verification of continued
attainment.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must require that the state will implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175(A)(d) of the
CAA.
    PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal includes a contingency plan for
the Clearfield/Indiana Area. In the event that the fourth highest
eight-hour ozone concentration at a monitor in the Clearfield/Indiana
Area exceeds 0.084 ppm for two consecutive years, but prior to an
actual violation of the NAAQS, PADEP will evaluate whether additional
local emission control measures should be implemented that may prevent
a violation of the NAAQS.\16\ After analyzing the conditions causing
the excessive ozone levels, evaluating the effectiveness of potential
corrective measures, and considering the potential effects of Federal,
state, and local measures that have been adopted but not yet
implemented, PADEP will begin the process of implementing selected
measures so that they can be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable following a violation of the NAAQS. In the event of a
violation, PADEP commits to adopting additional emission reduction
measures as expeditiously as practicable in accordance with the
schedule included in the contingency plan as well as the CAA and
applicable Pennsylvania statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A violation of the NAAQS occurs when an area's 3-year
design value exceeds the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PADEP will use the following criteria when considering additional
emission reduction measures to adopt to address a violation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the Clearfield/Indiana Area: (1) Air quality analysis
indicating the nature of the violation, including the cause, location,
and source; (2) emission reduction potential, including extent to which
emission generating sources occur in the nonattainment area; (3)
timeliness of implementation in terms of the potential to return the
area to attainment as expeditiously as practicable; and (4) costs,
equity, and cost-effectiveness. The measures PADEP would consider
pursuing for adoption in the Clearfield/Indiana Area include, but are
not limited to, those summarized in Table 3 of this document. If
additional emission reductions are necessary, PADEP commits to adopt
additional emission reduction measures to attain and maintain the 1997
ozone NAAQS.

  Table 3--Clearfield/Indiana Area Second Maintenance Plan Contingency
                                Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Regulatory Measures:
    Voluntary diesel engine ``chip reflash'' (installation software to
     correct the defeat device option on certain heavy-duty diesel
     engines).
    Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative
     fuel use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.
    Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.
    Idling reduction technologies or strategies for truck stops,
     warehouses, and other freight-handling facilities.
    Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially
     commercial equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.
    Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel) for home
     heating and agricultural use.
Regulatory Measures: \17\
    Additional control on consumer products.\18\
    Additional controls on portable fuel containers.\19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The contingency plan includes schedules for the adoption and
implementation of both non-regulatory and regulatory contingency
measures, including schedules for adopting potential land use planning
strategies not listed in Table 3 of this document, which are summarized
in Tables 4 and 5 of this document, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ These regulatory measures were considered potential cost-
effective and timely control strategies by the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) as well as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association and the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. The OTC
is a multi-state organization responsible for developing regional
solutions to ground-level ozone pollution in the Northeast and Mid-
Atlantic, including the development of model rules that member
states may adopt. The OTC member states include: Connecticut,
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia. For more information on the OTC, visit
https://otcair.org/index.asp. To view the model rules developed by
the OTC, including those for consumer products and portable fuel
containers, visit https://otcair.org/document.asp?fview=modelrules.
    \18\ Pennsylvania's existing controls on consumer products are
under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 130, Subchapters B and C (38 Pa.B. 5598).
This contingency measure includes the adoption of additional
controls on consumer products such as VOC limits for adhesive
removers.
    \19\ Existing controls on portable fuel containers can be found
under 40 CFR part 59, subpart F--Control of Evaporative Emissions
From New and In-Use Portable Fuel Containers.

    Table 4--Implementation Schedule for Clearfield/Indiana Area Non-
                     Regulatory Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Time after triggering event                     Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 months..............  PADEP will identify stakeholders for
                                potential non-regulatory measures for
                                further development.
Within 3 months..............  If funding is necessary, PADEP will
                                identify potential sources of funding
                                and the timeframe for when funds would
                                be available.
Within 6 months..............  PADEP will work with the relevant
                                planning commission(s) to identify
                                potential land use planning strategies
                                and projects with quantifiable and
                                timely emission benefits. PADEP will
                                also work with the Pennsylvania
                                Department of Community and Economic
                                Development and other state agencies to
                                assist with these measures.
Within 9 months..............  If state loans or grants are required,
                                PADEP will enter into agreements with
                                implementing organizations. PADEP will
                                also quantify projected emission
                                benefits.
Within 12 months.............  PADEP will submit revised SIP to EPA.
Within 12-24 months..........  PADEP will implement strategies and
                                projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 5--Implementation Schedule for Clearfield/Indiana Area Regulatory
                          Contingency Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Time after triggering event                     Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 1 month...............  PADEP will submit request to begin
                                regulatory development process.
Within 3 months..............  Request will be reviewed by the Air
                                Quality Technical Advisory Committee
                                (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                other advisory committees as
                                appropriate.
Within 6 months..............  Environmental Quality Board (EQB) meeting/
                                action.
Within 8 months..............  PADEP will publish regulatory measure in
                                the Pennsylvania Bulletin for comment as
                                proposed rulemaking.
Within 10 months.............  PADEP will hold a public hearing and
                                comment period on proposed rulemaking.
Within 11 months.............  House and Senate Standing Committee and
                                Independent Regulatory Review Commission
                                (IRCC) comment on proposed rulemaking.
Within 13 months.............  AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council, and
                                other committees will review responses
                                to comment(s), if applicable, and the
                                draft final rule.
Within 16 months.............  EQB meeting/action.
Within 17 months.............  The IRCC will take action on final rule.
Within 18 months.............  Attorney General's review/action.
Within 19 months.............  PADEP will publish the regulatory measure
                                as a final rule in the Pennsylvania
                                Bulletin and submit to EPA as a SIP
                                revision. The regulation will become
                                effective upon publication in the
                                Pennsylvania Bulletin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency plan included in PADEP's
February 27, 2020 submittal satisfies the pertinent requirements of CAA
section 175A(d). EPA notes that while six of the potential contingency
measures included in the Commonwealth's second maintenance plan are
non-regulatory, their inclusion among other measures is overall SIP-
strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's proposal to
find the LMP is fully approvable. EPA also finds that the submittal
acknowledges Pennsylvania's continuing requirement to implement all
pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the Clearfield/Indiana Area to attainment.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs, and projects. Specifically, for such
determination, RTPs, TIPs, and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 93.112) and
transportation control measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113).
    Additionally, conformity determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be
determined no less frequently than every four years, and conformity of
transportation plan and TIP amendments and transportation projects is
demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements specified in 40
CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved, they must come
from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114 and 93.115). The
Clearfield/Indiana Area remains under the obligation to meet the
applicable conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of PADEP's February 27, 2020 submittal indicates that
it meets all applicable CAA requirements, specifically the requirements
of CAA section 175A. EPA is proposing to approve the second maintenance
plan for the Clearfield/Indiana Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania
SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document.

These comments will be considered before taking final action.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2021-02582 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)

EPA Registration Division contact: Janet Whitehurst;<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., PO Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419

[0F7730]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([0F7730]) from Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., PO Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

(Options (pick one)        	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

		Thiabendazole, [2-(4-thiazolyl)-1H-benzimidazole], (CAS Reg. No. 148-79-8) and its metabolite benzimidazole (free and conjugated), in or on  corn, field, forage (0.01 ppm),  corn, field, grain (0.01 ppm), corn, field, stover (0.01 ppm), corn, pop, forage (0.01 ppm),  corn, pop, grain (0.01 ppm), corn, pop, stover (0.01 ppm), corn, sweet, forage (0.01 ppm), corn, sweet, stover (0.01 ppm), corn, sweet, kernel plus cobs with husks removed (0.01 ppm) .   EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [The qualitative nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood based on soybean, sugar beet, and wheat metabolism studies.  The residues of concern in plants include   thiabendazole and benzimidazole, free and conjugated.]

	2. Analytical method. [Adequate analytical methodology is available for data collection enforcing of thiabendazole residues. The Pesticide Analytical Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists four spectrophotofluorometric methods (Methods I, A, B and C) for determining residues of  thiabendazole  per se in or on plant commodities, and one spectrophotofluorometric method (Method D) for determining residues of thiabendazole and 5-hydroxy-thiabendazole in milk.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted complete residue data for Thiabendazole on corn (representing field corn forage, grain and stover,  pop corn forage, grain and stover and sweet corn forage, stover, and kernel plus cob with husks removed).]

B. Toxicological Profile

      	1. Acute toxicity.  [Thiabendazole has very low acute toxicity via oral and dermal (Category IV).   For acute inhalation, Thiabendozole is classified under Category II.   Thiabendazole is minimally irritating to the eye (Category III) and not irritating to skin (Category IV).  It is not a dermal sensitizer. ]

	2. Genotoxicty. [The available genetic toxicology studies on thiabendazole indicate that the compound is not mutagenic in bacteria or clastogenic in vitro in mammalian cells.  Thiabendazole did not cause DNA strand breaks in cultured rat hepatocytes and was negative for structural chromosome aberrations in rats.]

      	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [In the rat development study, the observed  maternal and developmental LOAEL/NOAEL of 40/10 mg/kg/day was based on decrease in body weight and food consumption.

In the mouse prenatal development toxicity study, there were reductions in maternal body weight at mid (100 mg//kg/day) and high dose (299 mg/kg/day) treatment groups. There were accompanying reductions in feed consumption in the HDT group. The mouse maternal and developmental LOAEL/NOEAL were 100/25 mg/kg/day, respectively.

In a rabbit developmental study, decreased maternal body weight gains and decreased  food consumption were seen at HDT (600 mg/kg/day).  There was also decreased fetal body weight and increased resorptions at 600 mg/kg.  The rabbit maternal and developmental LOAEL/NOAEL were 600/150 mg/kg, respectively.   In a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat, the parental systemic LOAEL was based on decreased body weight gain and food consumption seen at 30 mg/kg.  The NOEAL was 10 mg/kg. The offspring LOAEL was based on decreased body weight gain in offspring during lactation seen at 30 mg/kg. The reproductive LOAEL was >90 mg/kg.  The effects in the offspring were observed at higher dosages (90 mg/kg) than dosages (30 mg/kg) causing parental toxicity.  Therefore, there was no increased susceptibility.]

      	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In a 21 day dermal toxicity study in the rabbit, thiabendazole was administered dermally to rabbits. No systemic or dermal toxicities were noted at doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day. The systemic and dermal  NOEL was 1000 mg/kg.

In a subchronic toxicity study, thiabendazole was administered to rats in the diet.  The NOEL of 10 mg/kg was based on reduced body weight gains and histopathological changes in the bone marrow, liver and thyroid.

In another subchronic toxicity study, thiabendazole was administered to rats by gavage at doses of 0, 25, 100, or 400 mg/kg/day for 14 weeks .  The LOAEL for this study was 100 mg/kg/day. The NOEL of 25 mg/kg was based on histopathological changes of the liver, thyroid, kidneys, and spleen.

In a subchronic toxicity study in dogs, thiabendazole was administered orally in capsules to four beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 35, 75, or 150 mg/kg/day for 14 weeks.  The NOEL was150 mg/kg based on the increase of gallbladder epithelial cytoplasmic vacuolation.]

      	5. Chronic toxicity. [In a chronic toxicity study, thiabendazole was administered orally in capsules to four beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 10, 40, or 160 mg/kg/day for 52 weeks.  The LOAEL for this study was 40 mg/kg based on increased liver weight, splenic erythropoiesis and hemosiderosis in both sexes. The LOAEL was 10 mg/kg.

In a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, thiabendazole was administered to rats in the diet at dose levels of 0, 10, 30, or 90 mg/kg/day for104 weeks.  The systemic LOAEL was 30 mg/kg based on increase in incidence of benign thyroid  follicular cell adenoma.  The NOAEL was 10 mg/kg.

In a carcinogenicity study, thiabendazole was administered to 50 mice for 105 weeks.  There was an increase in mortality in all dose groups.  Body weight gains were significantly lower in high dose female and male. However, no treatment-related  increase in tumor incidence above background level was observed.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [The rat, goat and hen metabolism studies indicate that the qualitative nature of the residues in animals is adequately understood. The residue of concern in eggs, milk, and poultry and livestock tissue is thiabendazole and 5-hydroxy-thiabendazole (free and conjugated) and benzimidazole.

In a rat metabolism study, radio-labeled thiabendazole was administered to rats by gavage. Thiabendazole was readily absorbed by male and female rats following oral dosing.   Within 168 hours of dosing , over 89% of the dose was excreted in urine and feces.  The majority of the administered dose was recovered in the urine identified as the glucuronide conjugate of 5-hydroxythiabendazole and the sulfate conjugate of 5-hydroxy thiabendazole.  The data indicate that the renal excretion is the primary pathway for the elimination of thiabendazole from rats.  At the low dose level, it was shown that thiabendazole oxidizes to form 5-hydroxythiabendazole, followed by conjugation to form glucuronide and sufate conjugates of 5-hydroxythiabendazole. ]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The nature of residues in plants and animals is adequately understood. Residues of concern in plants include thiabendazole and its metabolite benzimidazole, free and conjugated.  The residue of concern in animal commodities are thiabendazole and 5-hydroxy-thiabendazole (free and conjugated) and benzimidazole.  No additional additional toxicologically significant metabolites were detected in any of the plant or animal metabolism studies. ]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Thiabendazole does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system.  Developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a reproduction study in rats gave no indication that thiabendazole might have any effects on endocrine function related to development and reproduction. ]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Tier III/IV chronic dietary exposure evaluations were made for thiabendazole using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID[TM], version 2.16) from Exponent.  These exposure assessments included all registered uses (apple, avocado, banana, dry bean, dry peas, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, cantaloupe, carrot, citrus fruit, lentils, mango, mushroom, papaya, pear, potato, soybean, strawberry, sweet potato, and wheat) and a proposed use on corn (seed treatment). USDA-PDP monitoring data (1994  -  2005) was used for all crops except avocados, corn, mangos, papayas, and dry peas. The residue values for avocados, mangos and papayas were from field trials where the fruit was treated post-harvest at a rate selected to support the maximum use pattern specified on thiabendazole product labels. The residue values for dry peas and corn were from field trials where thiabendazole was applied as a seed treatment at the maximum use rate.  Residue values for dry peas were used for dry bean, cauliflower, and broccoli, as no residue data was available for these seed treatment uses.  Since PDP data, field trial data and current tolerance values reflect analysis for thiabendazole only, a correction factor was applied to wheat, soybean, sweet potato, cantaloupe and strawberry residue values to account for anticipated residues of benzimidazole which is a metabolite of thiabendazole.  Seed treatment data were reported as thiabendazole only as residues are not likely to be detectable from seed treated with thiabendazole.  Benzimidazole conversion factors and percent of crop treated values were taken from the EPA's September 7, 2000 dietary exposure assessment on thiabendazole (DP Barcode No. D267542).  Percent of crop treated values for mushrooms were provided by Syngenta.  Crop processing values for citrus oil and dry potato were empirically dervived and DEEM default processing values were used for all other crop commodities.  Tolerance values were used for all animal commodities.  All consumption data for these assessments were taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.  ]

	i. Food. [Acute Exposure: The acute dietary risk assessment was not performed since an endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not identified. ]

Chronic Exposure.  [The chronic assessment was run using DEEM-FCID(TM) software using the proposed tolerance value for corn seed treatment, the average field trial residue value for dry peas, avocado, mango and papaya, and the average USDA-PDP residue values for all other registered crops that are currently supported by the product labels.  The residue values for wheat, soybean, sweet potatoes, cantaloupes and strawberries were adjusted to account for residues of benzimidazole.  The chronic dietary risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups with a chronic reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day based on a 2 year feeding/chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 10 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the reference dose (%RfD).  Chronic (non-cancer) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 6,953 (1.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic exposure to the most exposed sub-population (children 1 to 2 years old) resulted in a MOE of 1,647 (6.1% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment is 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for thiabendazole. ]

Cancer.  [Thiabendazole has been classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis."  Therefore, no cancer risk assessment was performed for thiabendazole.]

	ii. Drinking water. [The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of thiabendazole were determined for ground water using the Tier I SCI-GROW model and for surface water using the Tier I FIRST model which estimates pesticide concentrations in surface water.  EDWCs of thiabendazole from the currently registered uses plus the proposed seed treatment use on corn were determined.   Based on the SCI-GROW modeling results, the ground water EDWC for thiabendazole was 0.0104 ppb (chronic) based on the currently registered seed treatment use on dry peas.   Based on Tier I FIRST modeling for surface water, the currently registered dry peas use provided the highest chronic EDWC of 0.487 ppb (adjusted for 0.87 Percent Cropped Area, PCA).  Since the surface water chronic EDWC exceeds the ground water EDWC, the surface water value was used for risk assessment purposes and will be considered protective for any ground water concentration concerns. ]

  Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  [The acute exposure from drinking water was not performed since an endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not identified.]

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  [The chronic EDWC of 0.487 ppb (0.000487 ppm) was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources" to model the chronic drinking water exposure.   Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 974,206 (0.0% of the cRfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most sensitive sub-population was all infants (<1 year old), with a MOE of 297,148 (0.0% of the cRfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses of thiabendazole.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [There are no products containing thiabendazole that are currently registered for use by homeowners.  Thiabendazole-treated carpets and paints, can however, be used by homeowners.  In the 2002 EPA RED document, the Agency indicated that homeowners are not at risk from exposure to thiabendazole-treated carpets since the pesticide is applied to the backing of carpets during the manufacturing process and estimates are extremely conservative.  Due to thiabendazole's use profile, the Agency concluded that there is a low potential for residential exposure.  The low concentrations of thiabendazole incorporated in paints, adhesives, paper and carpet greatly reduces the potential for exposure.  Residential handlers using airless sprayer applicators and worst-case application rates resulted in a MOE of 1,010 (dermal plus inhalation).  In all cases, residential exposure is not expected to exceed EPA's level of concern (Benchmark MOE 100) and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE, Syngenta believes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from residential exposure to residues arising from current uses for thiabendazole. ]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Cumulative Exposure to Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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".  The Agency is examining whether and to what extent benzimidazole fungicidal pesticides share a common mechanism of toxicity.  Current information on the common mechanism of toxicity for benzimidazole fungicides is limited and the Agency's understanding of this relationship needs to be further developed.  As a result, the Agency has not determined if it would be appropriate to include them in a cumulative risk assessment with other benzimidazole fungicides or carcinogenic chemicals.  Therefore, for the purposes of this tolerance action, the EPA has not assumed that thiabendazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with other benzimidazole or carcinogenic chemicals.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Using the conservative assumptions described above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the chronic aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of thiabendazole resulted in a MOE of 6,904 (1.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day) for the U.S. population.  Since the chronic aggregate MOE of 6,904 exceeds the chronic aggregate Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. Population from chronic aggregate exposures arising from the current and proposed uses for thiabendazole.]

	2. Infants and children. [Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section above, and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the chronic aggregate (food plus water) exposure calculation for current and proposed uses of thiabendazole provided a MOE of 1,643 for children 1 - 2 years old (the most sensitive population subgroup).  Since the chronic aggregate MOE of 1,643 exceeds the chronic aggregate Benchmark MOE of 100, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from chronic aggregate exposures arising from the current and proposed uses for thiabendazole.]

F. International Tolerances

	[The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for thiabendazole in/on various fruit, vegetable and animal commodities.  Codex MRLs for thiabendazole are currently expressed in terms of the parent for plant commodities and in terms of the sum of parent and 5-hydroxy-thiabendazole for animal commodities.  The tolerance expressions for U.S. tolerances includes residues of benzimidazole, as such, the U.S. tolerance definition is not compatible with Codex MRLs for plant commoditites. ]


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 2351]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EL17-33-000]

Great River Energy; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 29, 2016, Great River Energy submitted
an updated revenue requirement for Reactive Power Service provided
under Schedule 2 of the Midwest ISO Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 19, 2017.

    Dated: December 30, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00074 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55600-55601]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10253-032]

Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC; Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC;
Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting
Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 10253-032.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC (Pelzer Hydro),
Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC (Consolidated Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Lower Pelzer Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saluda River
near the Towns of Pelzer and Williamston, in Anderson and Greenville
Counties, South Carolina. The project does not affect federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations
Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street,
Piedmont, SC 29673; Telephone--(864) 846-0042; Email_
[email protected], OR Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel
Green Power North America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA
01810; Telephone--(978) 681-1900; [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-10253-032.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The Lower Pelzer Project consists of: (1) A 696-foot-long by 40-
foot-high granite masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 310-foot-long
spillway section topped with 4-foot-high wooden flashboards, (ii) a 40-
foot-long non-overflow section with two 10-foot-wide by 6-foot-high
gates, and (iii) a 236-foot-long non-overflow section; (2) an 80-acre
impoundment at a normal pool elevation of 693 feet mean sea level; (3)
a 110-foot-long by 14-foot-wide intake, protected by a trashrack
structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, controlling flow to the
powerhouse through five, 10.5-foot-wide square gates; (4) a 110-foot-
long by 68-foot-wide brick powerhouse integral with the dam, containing
5 horizontal Francis turbine generating units that total 3,300
kilowatts (kW); (5) a 600-foot-long by 110-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 3-
mile-long, 3,300-volt transmission line connecting the powerhouse to
the grid via a 7.2/12.47 kilovolt transformer; and (7) appurtenant
facilities.
    Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the
project in a run-of-river mode using automatic pond level control, with
no storage or flood control capacity. A continuous minimum flow of 140
cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, is released
into the bypassed reach. The minimum flow is achieved via a sluice gate
in the non-overflow section of the dam. The project operates under an
estimated average head of 40 feet, including the 4-foot-high spillway
flashboards. The impoundment water surface elevation is maintained at
693 feet. River flows between 159 and 1,408 cfs are used for power
generation, while flows in excess of 1,408 cfs are passed over the
flashboards and spillway. Flow to the generating units is controlled by
five manually operated square slide gates. The total installed capacity
of the project is 3,300 kW between the five generating units. The
project generates approximately 8,784 megawatt-hours annually, which
are sold to a local utility.
    The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the
Lower Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to
develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to
remove the previous three-mile-long, 3,300-volt overhead transmission
line, which is no longer in use, from the project boundary under a new
license. Instead, the project uses a 165-foot-long, 3,300-volt
transmission line that interconnects with the grid at an applicant-
owned transformer.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title
COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or
PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements
of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations,
terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary
basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b).

Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25319 Filed 11-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22096-22100]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9562]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0792; FRL-8855-8]

Federal Plan for Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use
Pesticides Within EPA Region 8 Indian Country; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its intention to implement a Federal program
to certify applicators of restricted use pesticides in areas of Region
8 Indian country. The program will be administered by EPA Region 8 (EPA
R8) located in Denver, Colorado. EPA is soliciting comments on EPA's
intent to implement a Federal certification program in areas of R8
Indian country where no other EPA-approved plan applies and on its
Proposed Federal Plan for Certification of Applicators of Restricted
Use Pesticides within EPA Region 8 Indian Country (Plan). A separate
proposal and public comment period for a Federal certification plan to
address use of restricted use pesticides in Indian country outside R8
is forthcoming.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0792, 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 Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0792.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Bloom, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street (8P-P3T), Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This notice applies to individuals and businesses who are seeking
certification to apply restricted use pesticides (RUPs) as defined by
EPA in Region 8 Indian country where no EPA-approved plan applies.
Areas of Region 8 Indian country that currently have EPA-approved plans
include the Indian country of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and the
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (or Three Affiliated Tribes). This
action may, however, be of interest to those involved in agriculture
and anyone involved with the distribution and application of pesticides
for agricultural purposes. Others involved with pesticides in a non-
agricultural setting may also be affected. In addition, it may be of
interest to others, such as those persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances. Since other entities may also
be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

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

C. Additional Sources

    In addition to the sources listed in this unit, you may obtain
copies of the Plan, other related documents, or additional information
by contacting:
    1. Judy Bloom at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
    2. Nicole Zinn, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-7076; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its intention to implement a Federal program to
certify applicators of RUPs in areas of R8 Indian country and seeks
public comment. This Federal certification Plan describes the process
by which EPA R8 will implement a program for the certification of
applicators of RUPs in R8 Indian country based upon the certification
requirements enumerated at 40 CFR part 171. The Plan, in its entirety,
is included in the docket.

III. Introduction

A. What is the background for this plan?

    Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., the Administrator of EPA has
the authority to classify all registered pesticide uses as either
``restricted use'' or ``general use.'' Under FIFRA, pesticides (or the
particular use or uses of a pesticide) that may generally cause,
without additional regulatory restrictions, unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment, including injury to the applicator, shall
be classified for ``restricted use.'' Section 3(d)(1)(C), 7 U.S.C.
136a(d)(1)(C). If the classification is made because of hazards to the
applicator, the pesticide may only be applied by or under the direct
supervision of a certified applicator. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(C)(i),
136j(a)(2)(F). If the classification is made because of potential
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the pesticide may only
be applied by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator
or subject to such other restrictions as the Administrator may provide
by regulation. 7 U.S.C. 136a(d)(1)(C)(ii), 136j(a)(2)(F). To be
certified, an individual must be determined to be competent with
respect to the use and handling of pesticides covered by the
certification. 7 U.S.C. 136i(a).
    It was the intent of Congress that persons desiring to use
restricted use pesticides should be able to obtain certification under
programs approved by EPA, as reflected in sections 11 and 23 of FIFRA.
7 U.S.C. 136i, 136u. The regulations addressing Tribal and State
development and submission of certification plans to EPA are contained
at 40 CFR part 171. It is EPA's position that Tribal and State plans
are generally best suited to the needs of that particular Tribe or
State and its citizens. Tribes and States, however, are not required to
develop their own plans. Where EPA has not approved a State or Tribal
certification plan, the Agency is authorized to implement an EPA plan
for the Federal certification of applicators of restricted use
pesticides pursuant to sections 11 and 23 of FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136i,
136u; 40 CFR 171.11.
    EPA, Region 8 (EPA R8) has drafted a Plan for those areas of EPA R8
Indian country where no other EPA-approved plan applies.

B. What is the statutory authority for this plan?

    The plan will be implemented under the authority of section
11(a)(1) of

FIFRA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of August 3, 1996,
and regulations in 40 CFR 171.11. Additional enforcement authorities
are found in sections 8, 9, 12 and 23 of FIFRA.

C. Summary of the Plan

    1. Applicability. EPA intends to implement this Federal
certification plan in ``Indian country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151,
where no EPA-approved plan applies. ``Indian country'' is defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151 as:

    (a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under
the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding
the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running
through the reservation;
    (b) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the
United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired
territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a
State; and
    (c) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.

Consistent with the statutory definition of Indian country, as well as
Federal case law interpreting this statutory language, EPA treats lands
held by the Federal government in trust for Indian Tribes that exist
outside of formal reservations as informal reservations and, thus, as
Indian country. Indian country associated with EPA R8 refers to land
defined as Indian country at 18 U.S.C. 1151 that is located in the
States of Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. For a list of Federally recognized Tribes in EPA R8, see http://www.epa.gov/region8/tribes/govern.html.
    2. Provisions of plan.--i. Why is Region 8 developing a Plan? The
Region 8 Plan will allow the certification of applicators and legal use
of RUPs in R8 Indian country where there are currently no mechanisms in
place for such certification. RUPs cannot be legally used in Indian
country unless EPA has explicitly approved a non-Federal plan for such
area or issued a Federal certification plan for such area. To date, EPA
has not approved any State plan for the certification of applicators of
restricted use pesticides in any area of Indian country. Under 40 CFR
171.10(a)(1), Indian Tribes may choose to utilize State certification
programs for their areas, subject to the requirements of that
provision. There only three areas of Indian country in R8 for which
there are approved non-Federal plans.
    ii. To whom will the Plan apply? The Plan will only apply to
persons who intend to apply RUPs in those areas of R8 that are Indian
country excluding the areas of R8 Indian country that currently have
EPA-approved plans including the Indian country of the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe, and the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (or Three
Affiliated Tribes). This includes Indian country within the States of
Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. For a
list of Federally recognized Tribes in EPA R8, see http://www.epa.gov/region8/tribes/govern.html.
    In the event that the Federal applicator certification regulations
at 40 CFR 171.11 are revised, EPA R8 will revisit the Plan to determine
if modification of this Plan is necessary. Currently, a national plan
for certification of RUP applicators in Indian country is under
development and EPA R8 will review the R8 Plan to determine if the EPA
R8 Plan should be modified or continue to be implemented, when the
national plan is final.
    iii. Certification procedures. To become certified to use RUPs in
R8 Indian country, applicators must submit an application form to the
EPA R8 Office as well as proof of a valid Federal, State, or Tribal
certification. The Form is available at http://www.regulations.gov
under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0723.
    In lieu of submitting proof of a valid Federal, State or Tribal
certification, private applicators also have the option of showing
documentation that they have physically attended and completed an
approved training course and self-study evaluation. This ``no-test
option'' for private applicators is required to be available by FIFRA
for Federal certifications. Federal certification under this option is
valid for four years from the date of issuance, unless suspended or
revoked.
    Under 40 CFR 171.11(e), currently a Federal certificate expires 2
years after the date of issuance for commercial applicators and three
years for private applicators, or until the expiration date of the
original Federal, State, or Tribal certificate, whichever occurs first.
A proposed rule is currently under development that will allow a
Federal certification based on a valid Federal, State or Tribal
certification, to expire when the original certificate expires, unless
the certificate is suspended or revoked. Once the amendment is
finalized, the Agency will utilize the expiration date of the original
valid certification.
    EPA is proposing that the certification must be from a State or
Tribe with a contiguous boundary to the area of Indian country. An
exception will be included that the EPA Region has discretion to allow
Federal certification under the plan based on a valid certification
from another nearby State or Tribe.
    iv. Commercial applicator categories. EPA proposes to recognize the
categories authorized in the original certificate, and commercial
applicators will be authorized to apply RUPs in Indian country for uses
covered in their underlying Federal, State or Tribal certificate. EPA
is considering language that would exclude categories for sodium
cyanide capsules used with ejector devices for livestock predator
control and for sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock protection
collars. Under this Plan, a Federal certificate would only include the
sodium cyanide capsules and sodium fluoroacetate livestock protection
collars categories if the relevant Indian Tribe for the area of Indian
country at issue obtains its own registration for this product and
conducts its own monitoring and supervision.
    5. Implementation. EPA will administer routine maintenance
activities associated with implementation of this Plan and will conduct
inspections and take enforcement actions as appropriate. States,
Tribes, and other Federal agencies that issued a certification upon
which this Federal certification is based are not approved or
authorized by EPA to assure compliance in Indian country with the
Federal certification provided by this Plan.
    EPA may, if appropriate, deny, modify, suspend, or revoke the
Federal certificate under this Plan. The applicant or Federal
certificate holder has the right to request a hearing if EPA decides to
modify, suspend, or revoke the Federal certificate. If EPA decides to
deny, revoke, suspend or modify a Federal certificate, EPA will notify
the agency that issued the original certificate upon which the Federal
certificate was based.
    If the Federal, State, or Tribal certificate upon which the Federal
certificate is based is revoked, EPA R8 will begin procedures to revoke
the Federal certification. EPA may also begin procedures to suspend or
modify a Federal certificate if the Federal, State, or Tribal
certificate upon which it is based is suspended or modified.
    EPA will allow, during the 6 month period after publication of the
final Plan, applicators to apply RUPs under the Plan in R8 Indian
country only for the categories for which they already have a valid
State, Tribal or Federal

certificate \1\ if they submit a complete application to EPA R8 showing
proof of a valid State, Tribal, or Federal certification.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Please see Section IX of the Plan and Unit III.C.2.d of this
notice for commercial applicator categories recognized under the
Plan, as there are proposed exceptions for sodium cyanide capsules
used with ejector devices and sodium fluoroacetate used in livestock
protection collars.
    \2\ Although predicated in part on the applicator's existing
valid certification, any use permitted under this Plan is allowed
and will be enforced only under Federal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning 6 months after publication of the final Plan, applicators
who are covered under this Plan and have not received a written Federal
certification from EPA R8 are prohibited from applying RUPs in R8
Indian country.

IV. Specific Comments Are Sought

    EPA is seeking comment on the entire plan but would specifically
like comment on the following issues:
    1. Federal certification for applicators with certificates from
contiguous States or Tribes. EPA has proposed only issuing Federal
certification to applicators with certificates from contiguous States
or Tribes. This approach provides greater assurance that the applicator
has training relevant to use on the contiguous Indian country (e.g.,
understanding of endangered species issues, geography, climate, crops,
and pest pressure). However, this could present problems because the
applicators wishing to apply in Indian country will have fewer options
to obtain a certificate. To address this concern, EPA is proposing to
limit the Federal certification for applicators with certificates from
contiguous States or Tribes, but also include an exception that would
allow the Region to accept a certificate from another State or Tribe as
determined by the Region on a case-by-case basis. Should EPA proceed
with this approach? What, if any, other options should EPA consider and
why?
    2. Notification to Tribes. The Tribal Pesticide Program Council
(TPPC) has requested that a notification provision be included in the
Plan. This provision would require that applicators of RUPs notify the
relevant Tribe before each application that is made in R8 Indian
country. The Agency has questions as to whether this approach can be
practically implemented without causing undue burden to applicators,
the Tribes and the Agency.
    We are interested in obtaining comment regarding the relative value
of this approach as an actual requirement. On the one hand, requiring
notification to Tribes prior to application could provide Tribes some
benefit in knowing where and when RUP applications occur. EPA is
concerned, however, that requiring notifications may impose resource
burdens on Tribes to receive and review such notifications. The TPPC
suggested a possibility that EPA could receive these notifications and
post them publically for Tribes to access. However, EPA is not likely
to have the capacity or resources to receive these notifications. EPA
also notes that Tribes wishing to receive prior notification may wish
to consider including relevant notification requirements under Tribal
law. The Plan notes that applicators certified under the Plan are
responsible for complying with any applicable Tribal requirements.
    One alternative approach being considered is that EPA could post a
list of Federal certifications issued under this Plan. As a matter of
convenience, EPA could arrange the list by State such that
certifications issues for all Indian country located in a particular
State would be grouped together. This approach would provide EPA and
Tribes easy access to the list of applicators who may legally apply
RUPs within Indian country. EPA would like to know if this option would
be useful to Tribes.
    Another approach being considered is to have the Tribes provide a
contact person to the Web site so that applicators would know who to
contact to learn of any applicable Tribal requirements for a particular
Tribe. Would this option be useful for Tribes? Would it be burdensome?

V. Consultation With Region 8 Tribal Governments

    In the absence of an EPA-approved certification program in areas of
R8 Indian country, EPA, consistent with its statutory responsibilities
and the Federal government's trust responsibility to Federally
recognized Tribes, has worked with the Region 8 Tribes, on a
government-to-government basis, to appropriately develop a
certification program that will help ensure the protection of human
health and the environment in R8 Indian country. EPA has consulted with
the Region 8 Tribes on conference calls, face-to-face meetings, and
mailings to ensure development of a Federal plan that effectively meets
the needs of the Region 8 Tribes and restricted use pesticide
applicators in R8 Indian country.
    EPA drafted the R8 Federal plan in consultation with the Region 8
Tribes consistent with, among other things, the following policies,
orders and guidance: EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental
Programs on Indian Reservations, November 8, 1984; EPA/State/Tribal
Relations (Anti-Checkerboarding Policy), EPA Administrator William K.
Reilly, July 10, 1991; EPA Region 8 Policy for Environmental Protection
in Indian country, March 14, 1996; Guidance on the Enforcement
Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy, January 17, 2001;
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, November 6, 2000 which was reaffirmed by Presidential
memorandum, Tribal Consultation, November 5, 2009; and the Proposed EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, June 9,
2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The most current version of the draft policy was published
in the Federal Register for comment on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78198; FRL-9239-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C.3501 et
seq.), the information collection activities described in this document
and the revised Information Collection Request (ICR), OMB Control No.
2070-0029, are currently going through the renewal/amendment process
and will be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. As part of
this process, EPA is proposing to implement a revised form designed
specifically for pesticide applicators who wish to be certified in
Indian country. EPA estimates the paperwork burden associated with
completing this form to be 10 minutes per response. Under the PRA,
``burden'' means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal Agency. For this collection it 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. The
information collection activities and the form will be included in a
separate public docket.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Education, Pests and pesticides.

    Dated: April 12, 2011.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011-9562 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 65482]
[DOCID:fr08no06-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-155]

CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated
Rate Filing

November 1, 2006.
    Take notice that on October 27, 2006, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing and approval an
amendment to a negotiated rate agreement between CEGT and Anadarko
Energy Services Company and will be effective November 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-18808 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P