Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 66781 

On October 24, 2011, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 

1113 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 1113 into the SIP on August 17, 

2011 (76 FR 50891). The SCAQMD 

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved 

version on June 3, 2011 and CARB 

submitted them to us on September 27, 

2011. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. Rule 1113 provides VOC 

limits for architectural coatings. The 

major revisions to the rule include 

limiting and phasing out the averaging 

compliance option and introducing 

VOC limits for previously unregulated 

colorants. EPA’s technical support 

document (TSD) has more information 

about these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate requirements 

consistently include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Suggested Control Measure for 

Architectural Coatings,’’ CARB, October 

2007. 

4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA, 

January 2001. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: October 26, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27226 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0001; FRL–9367–5] 

Notice of Filing of Several Pesticide 

Petitions Filed for Residues of 

Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
66782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://www.

epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

contact person, with telephone number 

and email address, is listed at the end 

of each pesticide petition summary. You 

may also reach each contact person by 

mail at Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P) or 

Registration Division (RD) (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed at the end of the pesticide petition 

summary of interest. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through regulations.

gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 

all of the information that you claim to 

be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When 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. 

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to 

achieve environmental justice, the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of any group, including minority and/or 

low-income populations, in the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. To help 

address potential environmental justice 

issues, the Agency seeks information on 

any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their 

location, cultural practices, or other 

factors, may have atypical or 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health impacts or environmental 

effects from exposure to the pesticides 

discussed in this document, compared 

to the general population. 

II. What action is the agency taking? 

EPA is announcing its receipt of 

several pesticide petitions filed under 

section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), (21 U.S.C. 

346a), requesting the establishment or 

modification of regulations in 40 CFR 

part 174 and part 180 for residues of 

pesticide chemicals in or on various 

food commodities. The Agency is taking 

public comment on the requests before 

responding to the petitioners. EPA is not 

proposing any particular action at this 

time. EPA has determined that the 

pesticide petitions described in this 

document contain the data or 

information prescribed in FFDCA 

section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not 

fully evaluated the sufficiency of the 

submitted data at this time or whether 

the data support granting of the 

pesticide petitions. After considering 

the public comments, EPA intends to 

evaluate whether and what action may 

be warranted. Additional data may be 

needed before EPA can make a final 

determination on these pesticide 

petitions. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a 

summary of each of the petitions that 

are the subject of this document, 

prepared by the petitioner, is included 

in a docket EPA has created for each 

rulemaking. The docket for each of the 

petitions is available online at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

As specified in FFDCA section 

408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is 

publishing notice of the petition so that 

the public has an opportunity to 

comment on this request for the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticides in 

or on food commodities. Further 

information on the petition may be 

obtained through the petition summary 

referenced in this unit. 

New Tolerance 

1. PP 2E8064. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0635) Interregional Research Project 

Number 4 (IR–4), 500 College Rd. East, 

Suite 201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, 

requests to establish tolerances in 40 

CFR part 180 for residues of the 

insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-

bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-

chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-

carboxamide, in or on grain, cereal, 

group 15, except rice at 6.0 parts per 

million (ppm); grain, cereal, forage, 

fodder and straw, group 16 at 30.0 ppm; 

fruit, citrus, group 10–10 at 1.4 ppm; 

and fruit, pome, group 11–10 at 1.2 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 66783 

ppm. Adequate enforcement 

methodology (liquid chromatography/ 

mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry— 

(LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the 

tolerance expression. Contact: Sidney 

Jackson, RD, (703) 305–7610, email 

address: jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

2. PP 2E8065. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0775) BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., 

P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27709–3528, requests to establish 

tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 for 

residues of the herbicide for the 

combined residues of saflufenacil (2-

chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-

dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-

pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-

methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) 

and its metabolites N-[2-chloro-5-(2,6- 

dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3,6-dihydro1(2H)-pyrimidinyl)-4-fluorobenzoyl]-N′-

isopropylsulfamide and N-[4-chloro-2-

fluoro-5-({[(isopropylamino)sulfonyl]

amino carbonyl)phenyl]urea, calculated 

as the stoichiometric equivalent of 

saflufenacil, in or on sugarcane, cane at 

0.03 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 0.075 

ppm; and sugarcane, refined sugar at 

0.045 ppm . Adequate enforcement 

methodology (LC/MS/MS methods 

D0603/02 (plants) and L0073/01 

(livestock)) is available to enforce the 

tolerance expression. Contact: Bethany 

Benbow, RD, (703) 347–8072, email 

address: benbow.bethany@epa.gov. 

3. PP 2E8072. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0716) IR–4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 

201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 

for residues of the insecticide 

fenpyroximate, (E)-1,1-dimethylethyl 4- 

[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5-phenoxy-1H-pyrazol4-yl)methylene]amino]oxy] methyl]

benzoate and its Z-isomer, (Z)-1,1-

dimethylethyl 4-[[[[(1,3-dimethyl-5- 

phenoxy-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methylene] 

amino]oxy]methyl]benzoate in or on 

fruit, stone, group 12–12 at 2.0 ppm; 

fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy 

kiwifruit, subgroup 13–07F at 1.0 ppm; 

and vegetable, tuberous and corm, 

subgroup 1C at 0.1 ppm. An 

enforcement method has been 

developed which involves extraction of 

fenpyroximate from crops with ethyl 

acetate in the presence of anhydrous 

sodium sulfate, dilution with methanol, 

and then analysis by high performance 

liquid chromatography (HPLC) using 

tandem mass spectrometric detection 

(HPLC/MS/MS). This is a new 

enforcement method. Contact: Sidney 

Jackson, RD, (703) 305–7610, email 

address: jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

4. PP 2E8083. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0791) IR–4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 

201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to 

establish tolerances in 40 CFR part 180 

for residues of the herbicide linuron, (3- 

(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-methoxy-1-

methylurea) and its metabolites 

convertible to 3,4-dichloroaniline, 

calculated as linuron, in or on; cilantro, 

dried leaves at 27 ppm; cilantro, fresh 

leaves at 3 ppm; dillweed, dried leaves 

at 7.1 ppm; dillweed, fresh leaves at 1.5 

ppm; dill oil at 4.8 ppm; dill seed at 0.3 

ppm; horseradish at 0.050 ppm; parsley, 

dried leaves at 8.3 ppm; parsley leaves 

at 3 ppm; and pea, dry, seed at 0.08 

ppm. Adequate enforcement methods 

(gas chromatography/mass selective 

detection (GC/MSD)) are available for 

the determination of linuron in plant 

and animal commodities. A second 

method involves using reversed phase 

HPLC with MS/MS detection. Contact: 

Laura Nollen, RD, (703) 305–7390, email 

address: nollen.laura@epa.gov. 

Amended Tolerance 

1. PP 2E8064. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0635) IR–4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 

201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to 

concurrently delete the tolerances in 40 

CFR 180.628 for residues of the 

insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-

bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6- 

[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-

chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-

carboxamide, in or on mayhaw; corn, 

field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn, 

field, milled byproducts; corn, field, 

stover; corn, pop, forage; corn, pop, 

grain; corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, 

forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cobs 

with husk removed; corn, sweet, stover; 

fruit, citrus, group 10; and fruit, pome, 

group 11 upon approval of the 

tolerances listed under ‘‘New 

Tolerance’’ for PP 2E8064. Contact: 

Sidney Jackson, RD, (703) 305–7610, 

email address: jackson.sidney@epa.gov. 

2. PP 2E8083. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0791) IR–4, 500 College Rd. East, Suite 

201W., Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to 

delete the regional tolerance in 40 CFR 

180.184(c) for residues of the herbicide 

linuron, (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1-

methoxy-1-methylurea) and its 

metabolites convertible to 3,4-

dichloroaniline, calculated as linuron, 

in or on parsley, leaves at 0.25 ppm 

upon approval of the tolerances listed 

under ‘‘New Tolerance’’ for PP 2E8083. 

Contact: Laura Nollen, RD, (703) 305– 

7390, email address: nollen.laura@epa.

gov. 

New Tolerance Exemption 

PP 2E8059. (EPA–HQ–OPP–2012– 

0795) Pioneer Hi-Bred International, 

Inc. (DuPont Pioneer), 7100 NW 62nd 

Avenue, P.O. Box 1000, Johnston, IA 

50131, requests to establish an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of the Glycine 

max herbicide-resistant acetolactate 

synthase (GM–HRA) enzyme when used 

as an inert ingredient as part of a plantincorporated (PIP) in or on the food and 

feed commodities of soybean. The 

petitioner believes no analytical method 

is needed because an exemption from 

the requirement of a tolerance without 

numerical limitation is requested for 

GM–HRA enzyme as expressed in 

soybean. Contact: Susanne Cerrelli, 

BBPD, (703) 308–8077, email address: 

cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 26, 2012. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–27193 Filed 11–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2012–0738; FRL- 9712–9] 

RIN 2050–AG73] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; Revision To Increase Public 

Availability of the Administrative 

Record File 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 

to acknowledge advancements in 

technologies used to manage and 

convey information to the public. 

Specifically, this revision will add 

language to EPA regulations to broaden 

the technology, to include computer 

telecommunications or other electronic 

means, that the lead agency is permitted 

to use to make the administrative record 

file available to the public. By updating 

language used to describe permitted 

technology, the lead agency will be able 

to serve the information needs of a 

broader population while maintaining 

the ability to provide traditional means 

of public access to the administrative 

record file, such as paper copies and 

microform. The lead agency should 

assess the capacity and resources of the 

public to utilize and maintain an 

electronic- or computer 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1