81 FR 47040 - Finding of Failure To Submit a State Implementation Plan; Maryland; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 139 (July 20, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 139 (July 20, 2016)
| Page Range | 47040-47042 | |
| FR Document | 2016-17057 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 47040-47042] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-17057] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270; FRL-9949-34-Region 3] Finding of Failure To Submit a State Implementation Plan; Maryland; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action finding that Maryland has failed to submit an infrastructure state implementation plan (SIP) to satisfy certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, these requirements pertain to the obligation to prohibit emissions which significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. This finding of failure to submit establishes a 2-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) to address the interstate transport SIP requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states unless, prior to EPA promulgating a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these requirements. DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2016. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0270. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this final agency action without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submissions, or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus, notice and public procedures are unnecessary. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). I. Background and Overview A. Interstate Transport SIPs CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the ``infrastructure'' SIP because it ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an ``interstate transport SIP.'' In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that such a plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2, also called the ``good neighbor'' provisions, are the requirements relevant to this findings document. Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), EPA must determine no later than 6 months after the date by which a state is required to submit a SIP whether a state has made a submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria established per section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA refers to the determination that a state has not submitted a SIP that meets the minimum completeness criteria as a ``finding of failure to submit.'' If EPA finds a state has failed to submit a SIP to meet its statutory obligation to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to section 110(c)(1) EPA has not only the authority, but the obligation, to promulgate a FIP within 2 years to address the CAA requirement. This finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such promulgation the state submits, and EPA approves, a submittal from the state to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA notes this action does not start a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this finding of failure to submit does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). B. Finding of Failure To Submit for States That Did Not Submit a SIP On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the 8-hour primary ozone standard from 0.08 parts per millions (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-hour standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard, including the interstate transport requirements, were due March 12, 2011. On December 27, 2012, Maryland submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA determined the December 27, 2012 SIP submittal as complete on January 2, 2013. On May 2, 2014, EPA proposed approval of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did not propose to take action on the portion of the submittal related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), stating that EPA would take separate action on this part of the submittal. See 79 FR 25054. On July 13, 2015, EPA published a rule finding that 24 states failed to submit complete SIPs that addressed the ``good neighbor'' provision for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July 13, 2015).\1\ The finding action triggered a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs to address the ``good neighbor'' [[Page 47041]] requirements for those states by August 12, 2017. Prior to issuance of the finding action, Maryland made a submission addressing the ``good neighbor'' provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 27, 2012, therefore, the state was not included in EPA's July 2015 finding notice. Following Maryland's submittal of its infrastructure SIP and EPA's July 2015 finding notice, EPA proposed a rule on November 16, 2015 \2\ to address the ``good neighbor'' requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The rule proposed to promulgate FIPs in 23 eastern states, including Maryland, to reduce interstate ozone transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposed to issue FIPs only for those states that either failed to submit a SIP or for which the EPA disapproved the state's SIP addressing the ``good neighbor'' provision by the date the rule was finalized. EPA expects to finalize the rule and respective FIPs, as applicable, later this year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This finding is included in the docket for this action and available online at www.regulations.gov. \2\ See ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS; Proposed Rules,'' 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 20, 2016, EPA received a letter, dated April 12, 2016,\3\ from the Maryland Department of the Environment acknowledging that the transport component of the December 27, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal needed to be updated with additional control measures and withdrawing from EPA's consideration the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of Maryland's infrastructure SIP submittal dated December 27, 2012. The letter also states that Maryland plans to submit to EPA an updated good neighbor SIP in the future. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Maryland's April 12, 2012 letter inadvertently referred to an incorrect submittal date of December 31, 2012. The only infrastructure SIP submission from Maryland addressing section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the December 27, 2012 submittal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Final Action With the withdrawal of the good neighbor portion of the December 27, 2012 infrastructure SIP submittal, Maryland has not submitted to EPA a SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is therefore finding that Maryland has failed to submit a complete good neighbor SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This finding starts a 2- year clock for promulgation by EPA of a FIP after the effective date of this final rule, in accordance with section 110(c)(1), unless prior to such promulgation that Maryland submits, and EPA approves, a submittal that meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This finding of failure to submit does not impose sanctions, and does not set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in section 179, because it does not pertain to the elements of a CAA title I, part D plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I), and because this action is not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5). III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the CAA under section 110(a) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a) to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. No tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under section 110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Congressional Review Act (CRA) This action is subject to the CRA, and EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). K. Petitions for Judicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. [[Page 47042]] This action finding that Maryland has failed to submit a CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(I)(I) SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone. Dated: July 8, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 2016-17057 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![47040 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2016–16941 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, is required to submit a SIP whether a
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. state has made a submission that meets
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the minimum completeness criteria
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814–2308, or by established per section 110(k)(1)(A).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION email at powers.marilyn@epa.gov. EPA refers to the determination that a
AGENCY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: state has not submitted a SIP that meets
the minimum completeness criteria as a
40 CFR Part 52 Notice and Comment Under the ‘‘finding of failure to submit.’’ If EPA
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) finds a state has failed to submit a SIP
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0270; FRL–9949–34– to meet its statutory obligation to
Section 553 of the APA, 5 U.S.C.
Region 3]
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), pursuant to
Finding of Failure To Submit a State agency for good cause finds that notice section 110(c)(1) EPA has not only the
Implementation Plan; Maryland; and public procedure are impracticable, authority, but the obligation, to
Interstate Transport Requirements for unnecessary or contrary to the public promulgate a FIP within 2 years to
the 2008 8-Hour National Ambient Air interest, the agency may issue a rule address the CAA requirement. This
Quality Standards for Ozone without providing notice and an finding therefore starts a 2-year clock for
opportunity for public comment. EPA promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in
AGENCY: Environmental Protection has determined that there is good cause accordance with CAA section 110(c)(1),
Agency (EPA). for making this final agency action unless prior to such promulgation the
ACTION: Final rule. without prior proposal and opportunity state submits, and EPA approves, a
for comment because no significant EPA submittal from the state to meet the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection judgment is involved in making a requirements of CAA section
Agency (EPA) is taking final action finding of failure to submit SIPs, or 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour
finding that Maryland has failed to elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, ozone NAAQS. EPA notes this action
submit an infrastructure state where states have made no submissions, does not start a mandatory sanctions
implementation plan (SIP) to satisfy or incomplete submissions, to meet the clock pursuant to CAA section 179
certain interstate transport requirements requirement. Thus, notice and public because this finding of failure to submit
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect procedures are unnecessary. EPA finds does not pertain to a part D plan for
to the 2008 8-hour ozone national that this constitutes good cause under 5 nonattainment areas required under
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call
Specifically, these requirements pertain pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).
to the obligation to prohibit emissions I. Background and Overview
B. Finding of Failure To Submit for
which significantly contribute to A. Interstate Transport SIPs States That Did Not Submit a SIP
nonattainment, or interfere with
CAA section 110(a) imposes an On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened
maintenance, of the 2008 8-hour ozone
obligation upon states to submit SIPs the NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the
NAAQS in other states. This finding of
that provide for the implementation, 8-hour primary ozone standard from
failure to submit establishes a 2-year
maintenance and enforcement of a new 0.08 parts per millions (ppm) to 0.075
deadline for EPA to promulgate a
or revised NAAQS within 3 years ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-
federal implementation plan (FIP) to
following the promulgation of that hour standard to the level of 0.075 ppm
address the interstate transport SIP
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific making it identical to the revised
requirements pertaining to significant
requirements that states must meet in primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs
contribution to nonattainment and
these SIP submissions, as applicable. addressing the revised standard,
interference with maintenance of the
EPA refers to this type of SIP including the interstate transport
2008 ozone NAAQS in other states
submission as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements, were due March 12, 2011.
unless, prior to EPA promulgating a FIP,
because it ensures that states can On December 27, 2012, Maryland
the state submits, and EPA approves, a
implement, maintain and enforce the air submitted an infrastructure SIP for the
SIP that meets these requirements.
standards. Within these requirements, 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA determined
DATES: This final rule is effective on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains the December 27, 2012 SIP submittal as
August 19, 2016. requirements to address interstate complete on January 2, 2013. On May 2,
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP 2014, EPA proposed approval of
docket for this action under Docket ID revision submitted for this sub-section Maryland’s infrastructure SIP submittal
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0270. All is referred to as an ‘‘interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did not
documents in the docket are listed in SIP.’’ In turn, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) propose to take action on the portion of
the www.regulations.gov Web site. requires that such a plan contain the submittal related to section
Although listed in the electronic docket, adequate provisions to prohibit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), stating that EPA would
some information is not publicly emissions from the state that will take separate action on this part of the
available, i.e., confidential business contribute significantly to submittal. See 79 FR 25054.
information (CBI) or other information nonattainment of the NAAQS in any On July 13, 2015, EPA published a
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. other state (prong 1) or interfere with rule finding that 24 states failed to
Certain other material, such as maintenance of the NAAQS in any other submit complete SIPs that addressed the
copyrighted material, is not placed on state (prong 2). Interstate transport ‘‘good neighbor’’ provision for the 2008
the Internet and will be publicly
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
prongs 1 and 2, also called the ‘‘good Ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961 (July
available only in hard copy form. neighbor’’ provisions, are the 13, 2015).1 The finding action triggered
Publicly available docket materials are requirements relevant to this findings a 2-year clock for the EPA to issue FIPs
available through www.regulations.gov document. to address the ‘‘good neighbor’’
or may be viewed during normal Pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B),
business hours at the Air Protection EPA must determine no later than 6 1 This finding is included in the docket for this
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection months after the date by which a state action and available online at www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:53 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_47179/page/1.svg)
![47042 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
This action finding that Maryland has 20460–0001. The Public Reading Room before September 19, 2016. Addresses
failed to submit a CAA section is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., for mail and hand delivery of objections
110(a)(2)(D)(I)(I) SIP may not be Monday through Friday, excluding legal and hearing requests are provided in 40
challenged later in proceedings to holidays. The telephone number for the CFR 178.25(b).
enforce its requirements. (See section Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, In addition to filing an objection or
307(b)(2).) and the telephone number for the OPP hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 submit a copy of the filing (excluding
the visitor instructions and additional
Environmental protection, Air information about the docket available any Confidential Business Information
pollution control, Intergovernmental at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
relations, Ozone. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information not marked confidential
Dated: July 8, 2016. Susan Lewis, Registration Division pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
Shawn M. Garvin, (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, objection or hearing request, identified
[FR Doc. 2016–17057 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
DC 20460–0001; main telephone by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 2016–0149, by one of the following
number: (703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFRNotices@epa.gov. methods.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
AGENCY I. General Information instructions for submitting comments.
40 CFR Part 180 Do not submit electronically any
A. Does this action apply to me? information you consider to be CBI or
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0149; FRL–9948–64] You may be potentially affected by other information whose disclosure is
this action if you are an agricultural restricted by statute.
2-Propenoic Acid, Butyl Ester, Polymer producer, food manufacturer, or • Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
With Ethenyl Acetate and Sodium pesticide manufacturer. The following Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
Ethenesulfonate; Tolerance Exemption list of North American Industrial DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Classification System (NAICS) codes is NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
Agency (EPA). not intended to be exhaustive, but rather • Hand Delivery: To make special
provides a guide to help readers arrangements for hand delivery or
ACTION: Final rule.
determine whether this document delivery of boxed information, please
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an applies to them. Potentially affected follow the instructions at http://
exemption from the requirement of a entities may include: www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic • Crop production (NAICS code 111). Additional instructions on
acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl • Animal production (NAICS code commenting or visiting the docket,
acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate 112). along with more information about
(CAS Reg. No. 66573–43–1) when used • Food manufacturing (NAICS code dockets generally, is available at http://
as an inert ingredient in a pesticide 311). www.epa.gov/dockets.
chemical formulation. Celanese Ltd • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
II. Background and Statutory Findings
submitted a petition to EPA under the code 32532).
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act In the Federal Register of April 25,
B. How can I get electronic access to 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL–9944–86),
(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from other related information?
the requirement of a tolerance. This EPA issued a document pursuant to
regulation eliminates the need to You may access a frequently updated FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
establish a maximum permissible level electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 announcing the receipt of a pesticide
for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl through the Government Printing petition (PP IN–10900) filed by Celanese
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and Office’s e-CFR site at http:// Ltd, 222 W Las Colinas Blvd., Suite
sodium ethenesulfonate on food or feed www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text- 900N, Irving, TX 75039. The petition
commodities. idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/ requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be
40tab_02.tpl. amended by establishing an exemption
DATES: This regulation is effective July
from the requirement of a tolerance for
20, 2016. Objections and requests for C. Can I file an objection or hearing residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
hearings must be received on or before request? ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and
September 19, 2016, and must be filed Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 sodium ethenesulfonate (CAS No.
in accordance with the instructions U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 66573–43–1). That document included a
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also objection to any aspect of this regulation summary of the petition prepared by the
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY and may also request a hearing on those petitioner and solicited comments on
INFORMATION). objections. You must file your objection the petitioner’s request. The Agency did
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, or request a hearing on this regulation not receive any comments.
identified by docket identification (ID) in accordance with the instructions Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2016–0149, is provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure allows EPA to establish an exemption
available at http://www.regulations.gov proper receipt by EPA, you must from the requirement for a tolerance (the
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– legal limit for a pesticide chemical
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) OPP–2016–0149 in the subject line on residue in or on a food) only if EPA
in the Environmental Protection Agency the first page of your submission. All determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William objections and requests for a hearing Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 must be in writing, and must be defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC received by the Hearing Clerk on or reasonable certainty that no harm will
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:53 Jul 19, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM 20JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_47179/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:57:20
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:57:20
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on August 19, 2016. | |
| Contact | Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at [email protected]gov. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 47040 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Intergovernmental Relations and Ozone |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR