29726 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

c. EPA’s Evaluation of the Modeling 

Demonstration 

Our evaluation of the air quality 

modeling analyses and supporting 

information provided in the South Coast 

2012 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration indicate that the South 

Coast area will attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by its December 31, 2022. In 

addition to the attainment 

demonstration provided in the South 

Coast 2012 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration, we have considered 

supplemental technical information, 

including ambient air quality 

monitoring data, which was not 

available at the time the attainment 

modeling was performed by SCAQMD. 

This information is discussed in more 

detail in the ‘‘Review of the Modeling 

for the Attainment Demonstration for 

the Proposed Rulemaking Action on the 

South Coast 2012 AQMP for the One 

Hour Ozone Standard’’ memorandum in 

the docket. The most recent ambient air 

quality data that we have reviewed 

indicate that the area is on track to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

December 31, 2022. The 1-hour ozone 

design value has decreased from 23.4 

expected exceedance days in 2000–2002 

(average each year) to 5.5 expected 

exceedance days in 2010–2012. The 

peak 1-hour concentration has 

decreased from 0.169 ppm in 2002 to 

0.147 ppm in 2012. 

Based on the analysis above and in 

the technical memorandum in the 

docket, EPA proposes to find that the air 

quality modeling provides an adequate 

basis for the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration in the 2012 AQMP. 

III. Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 

For the reasons discussed above, 

under section 110(k) of the CAA, the 

EPA is proposing to approve certain 

ozone-related portions of the 2012 

South Coast AQMP as a revision to the 

California SIP. The relevant portions of 

the 2012 AQMP that are proposed for 

approval include the updated control 

strategy for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and the demonstration of 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 

in the South Coast by December 31, 

2022. In so doing, we are proposing to 

approve the following commitments or 

measures upon which the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration relies and 

that support update the approved 

control strategy for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard: 

• SCAQMD’s commitments to 

develop, adopt, submit and implement 

the measures as listed in table 5, above, 

subject to findings of infeasibility and 

measure substitution, and a 

commitment to meet aggregate 

emissions reductions targets of 5.8 tpd 

of VOC and 10.7 tpd of NOX by January 

1, 2022; 

• The new technology measures 

listed in table 6, above to achieve 

emissions reductions of 17 tpd of VOC 

and 150 tpd of NOX; in the South Coast 

by January 1, 2022; and 

• CARB’s commitment to submit 

contingency measures by January 1, 

2019 as necessary to ensure that the 

emissions reductions from new 

technology measures are achieved. 

In proposing approval, EPA finds that 

an attainment date of December 31, 

2022 is appropriate in light of the 

severity of the 1-hour ozone problem in 

the South Coast and given the extent to 

which emissions sources in the South 

Coast have already been controlled and 

the difficulty of developing regulations 

and controlling additional emissions. 

EPA also finds that the South Coast 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration is 

based on reasonable estimates and 

forecasts of ozone precursor emissions 

and appropriate photochemical 

modeling techniques and assumptions 

and an acceptable control strategy. 

We are taking public comments for 

thirty days following the publication of 

this proposed rule in the Federal 

Register. We will take all comments into 

consideration in our final rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the 

Actand 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 proposed 

action merely approves a state plan 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, October 7, 

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 rule 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, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 5, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator,EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11510 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0400; FRL–9911–40– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; Control 

of Air Pollution From Nitrogen 

Compounds 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29727 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for 

Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen 

Compounds. Specifically, three separate 

revisions were submitted to EPA with 

letters dated April 13, 2012, May 8, 

2013, and May 14, 2013, respectively. 

We are proposing to approve these three 

submittals in accordance with the 

federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0400 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Mr. Alan Shar at shar.alan@

epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Air Planning 

Section Chief (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0400. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email, 

if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

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 along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

While all documents in the docket are 

listed in the index, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material), and some may not be publicly 

available at either location (e.g., CBI). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment with the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alan Shar (6PD–L), Air Planning 

Section, (214) 665–6691, shar.alan@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Outline 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we proposing? 

1. The April 13, 2012 Submittal 

2. The May 8, 2013 Submittal 

3. The May 14, 2013 Submittal 

II. Evaluation 

A. What is our evaluation of the April 13, 

2012, submittal? 

B. What is our evaluation of the May 8, 

2013, submittal? 

C. What is our evaluation of the May 14, 

2013, submittal? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing to approve three 

separate revisions to the Texas SIP 

submitted to EPA for review and 

evaluation with three letters dated April 

13, 2012, May 8, 2013, and May 14, 

2013, from the TCEQ. These three 

separate submittals are described below. 

1. The April 13, 2012 Submittal 

In a letter dated October 25, 2010, 

EPA requested that the TCEQ withdraw 

and revise its System Cap Trading (SCT) 

rules under 30 TAC Chapter 101 from 

SIP consideration. The EPA proposed 

disapproval of the TCEQ’s SCT program 

on November 18, 2010, (75 FR 70654); 

and consequently, the TCEQ repealed 

and withdrew its SCT program rules 

from EPA’s consideration as a SIP 

revision. Because of the TCEQ’s repeal 

and withdrawal of the SCT program rule 

from the Texas SIP, on April 8, 2011, 

(76 FR 19739) EPA withdrew its 

proposed disapproval of the Texas SCT 

program rules. The 30 TAC Chapter 117 

rules of NOX cross-reference the SCT 

program rules of 30 TAC Chapter 101. 

Given the cross-reference linkage 

between the two rules, later, on April 

13, 2012, the TCEQ submitted revisions 

to the 30 TAC Chapter 117 rule to EPA 

for review and evaluation. 

The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 

remove references to the term ‘‘system 

cap trading’’ for utility electric 

generation sources operating in major 

ozone nonattainment areas and the East 

and Central Texas Counties. The 

revisions concern sections 117.1020, 

117.1120, 117.1220, 117.3020, and 

117.9800. The State’s adopted rule was 

published on April 13, 2012, at 37 Texas 

Register 2655. 

The intended effect of this removal is 

that the April 13, 2012, revisions to 30 

TAC Chapter 117 and their 

corresponding provisions of 30 TAC 

Chapter 101 will become consistent. See 

section 1 of the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) prepared in 

conjunction with this rulemaking action 

for more information. 

2. The May 8, 2013 Submittal 

With a letter dated May 8, 2013, the 

TCEQ submitted revisions to the 30 

TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter D, 

Division 2, Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 

Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 

Minor Sources. The revisions 

specifically concern sections 117.2103, 

117.2130, 117.2135, and 117.2145. 

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 

located in Carrollton, Texas 75006 

petitioned the TCEQ to be allowed an 

additional exemption in the rules in 30 

TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter D, 

Division 2 that limit NOX emissions 

from minor sources in the DFW 8-Hour 

ozone nonattainment area. The TCEQ 

approved the petition, and initiated the 

rulemaking process. The State’s adopted 

rule was published on April 26, 2013, 

at 38 Texas Register 2634. See section 2 

of the TSD for more information. On 

May 8, 2013, the TCEQ submitted their 

adopted rule revisions to EPA, 

requesting EPA’s evaluation and 

approval. 

3. The May 14, 2013 Submittal 

With a letter dated May 14, 2013, the 

TCEQ submitted revisions to the 30 

TAC Chapter 117 to update references to 

Electric Reliability Council of Texas, 

Incorporated (ERCOT) protocols and 

reflect changes to ERCOT’s new 

Emergency Service Response (ERS) 

program. The ERCOT manages the 

electrical grid within the ERCOT region 

of Texas, with oversight by the Public 

Utility Commission of Texas. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29728 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Specifically, the May 14, 2013, 

submittal concerns revisions to the 

definition of emergency situation in 

section 117.10 Definitions. The State’s 

adopted rule was published on April 26, 

2013, at 38 Texas Register 2623. See 

section 3 of the TSD for more 

information. On May 14, 2013, the 

TCEQ submitted their adopted rule 

revisions to EPA, requesting EPA’s 

evaluation and approval. 

II. Evaluation 

Our evaluation of these three 

submittals is as follows: 

A. What is our evaluation of the April 

13, 2012, submittal? 

The SCT program was created to 

provide additional flexibility to 

facilities subject to emission limits 

specified in 30 TAC Chapter 117. 

Through use of emission credits 

generated from each affected source one 

could determine the compliance of 

these sources with their applicable NOX

control requirements. See section 

117.9800. 

The TCEQ later repealed and 

withdrew its SCT program rules from 30 

TAC Chapter 101. The April 13, 2012, 

revisions to Chapter 117 remove 

references to SCT from sections 

117.1020, 117.1120, 117.1220, 117.3020, 

and 117.9800. The removal of references 

to SCT from Chapter 117 rules will 

make both the trading rules of Chapter 

101 and the NOX control rules of 

Chapter 117 consistent, and will clarify 

the available compliance options for 

electric generating units in Texas. See 

EPA’s November 1, 2011, letter to the 

TCEQ. The revision is administrative in 

nature. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the April 13, 2012, revisions to 

Chapter 117 into the Texas SIP. 

B. What is our evaluation of the May 8, 

2013, submittal? 

In response to a petition from 

Haliburton, the TCEQ adopted a 

revision to their SIP that exempts 

stationary diesel engines that are used 

exclusively for product testing and 

personnel training, operate less than 

1,000 hours per year on a rolling 12- 

month basis, and meet applicable EPA’s 

Tier emission standards for non-road 

engines listed in 40 CFR 89.112(a), 

Table 1 (October 23, 1998) in effect at 

the time of installation, modification, 

reconstruction, or relocation. In 

addition, they have included monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

demonstrating compliance. We have 

included a section by section review of 

the affected provisions of Chapter 117 

(sections 117.2103, 117.2130, 117.2135, 

117.2145) of the May 8, 2013, submittal 

in the TSD. See section 2, and Appendix 

A of the TSD. 

Halliburton operates a stationary, 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engine (the drawworks engine) for the 

purposes of employee training and 

product testing at its Carrollton, Texas 

Plant. The drawworks engine is used for 

lifting and lowering casing into the test 

well at this plant. The test well is used 

solely for purposes of employee training 

and down-hole product testing, and is 

not associated with the actual oil or gas 

production operations. Engines used to 

raise and lower down-hole equipment 

in actual oil and gas operations in the 

field, which the drawworks engine is 

designed to simulate, are typically not 

subject to similar Chapter 117 testing 

requirements because they are not 

installed at one location long enough to 

trigger the definition of a stationary 

internal combustion engine in section 

117.10. According to the records, the 

drawworks engine was installed in 

2010, and the emissions testing results 

are compliant with the federal Tier 3 

emission standards for non-road engines 

listed in 40 CFR 89.112(a), Table 1. 

According to section 110(l) of the Act, 

each revision to an implementation plan 

submitted by a State under this chapter 

shall be adopted by such State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of this chapter. 

The TCEQ submitted a 110(l) analysis 

and additional information as a part of 

the May 8, 2013, submittal. Also, see the 

April 26, 2013, issue of Texas Register 

at 38 TexReg 2634. 

As a part of this analysis we are 

considering the following factors: (a) 

The engine has been shown to meet the 

Tier 3 emission standards for non-road 

engines listed in 40 CFR 89.112(a), 

Table 1; (b) NOX emissions reductions 

from the engine were not relied upon in 

the DFW attainment demonstration SIP 

revision for creditable reductions; (c) 

this unit operates less than 1,000 hours 

per year; (d) actual NOX emissions from 

the engine is calculated to be 0.87 tons 

per year (tpy) which is substantially 

below the 50 tpy threshold; (e) the 

engine is dedicated exclusively to 

employee training and product testing 

activities, and is not used for the actual 

oil and gas production operations; (f) 

section 117.2135(e) states that engine’s 

operating time must be monitored with 

a non-resettable elapsed run time meter 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

operating restrictions in 117.2103(10); 

and (g) section 117.2145(b) requires that 

the records be maintained for at least 

five years and must be made available 

upon request to the State, EPA, or any 

local air pollution control agency having 

jurisdiction. Furthermore, the adopted 

exemption is narrow in scope and 

consistent with the similar existing 

exemptions for stationary diesel engines 

located at minor sources, such as 

stationary engines used in research and 

testing and stationary engines used for 

purposes of performance verification 

and testing. See sections 

117.2003(a)(2)(B) and 117.2003(a)(2)(C). 

Therefore, we are proposing to agree 

with the TCEQ’s explanation and the 

reasons as to why expansion of this 

partial exemption, in itself, does not 

adversely impact the status of the Texas’ 

progress towards attainment of the 1997 

eight-hour ozone standard, will not 

interfere with control measures, and 

will not prevent reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the ozone 

standard. For these reasons, we find 

their 110(l) analysis adequate for the 

purpose of evaluation of the proposed 

revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the May 8, 2013, revisions to Chapter 

117 into Texas SIP. 

C. What is our evaluation of the May 14, 

2013, submittal? 

The May 14, 2013, revisions to the 30 

TAC Chapter 117 update references to 

ERCOT’s definition of ‘‘emergency 

situation’’ and its new ERS program that 

replaced the former Emergency 

Interruptible Load Service Program. The 

changes made by ERCOT are intended 

to promote electric power reliability 

during energy emergencies by allowing 

operation of generators for the purpose 

of selling power to the electric grid 

under limited circumstances. The 

revision to the definition of ‘‘emergency 

situation’’ in section 117.10(15) will 

make the 30 TAC Chapter 117 

definitions of ‘‘emergency situation’’ 

consistent with the ERCOT’s Nodal 

Protocols Section 2 (Definitions and 

Acronyms) of June 1, 2012. The adopted 

amendment does not increase the 

number of sources that could qualify for 

exemption under the Chapter 117 rules, 

or increase the frequency or duration of 

the operation during an emergency 

situation as compared to the approved 

SIP. Therefore, the adopted rulemaking 

will not contribute to nonattainment 

with the ozone NAAQS and is therefore 

consistent with section 110(l) of the Act. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the May 14, 2013 revisions to Chapter 

117 into Texas SIP. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 100 / Friday, May 23, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29729 

III. Proposed Action 

Today, we are proposing to approve 

the April 13, 2012, revisions to 30 TAC 

Chapter 117 sections 117.1020, 

117.1120, 117.1220, 117.3020, and 

117.9800 to remove reference to SCT 

program rule from these sections. We 

are proposing to approve the May 8, 

2013, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 

sections 117.2103, 117.2130, 117.2135, 

and 117.2145, to allow for partial 

exemption of oil and gas drawworks 

engines used for personnel training and 

product testing from NOX control 

requirements. We are also proposing to 

approve the May 14, 2013, revisions to 

30 TAC Chapter 117 section 117.10(15), 

to update the definition of emergency. 

We are proposing to approve these 

revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 into 

Texas SIP. 

IV. 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. If a portion of the 

plan revision meets all the applicable 

requirements of this chapter and Federal 

regulations, the Administrator may 

approve the plan revision in part. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices that meet 

the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove 

state choices that do not meet the 

criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action 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 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; 

• 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); and 

• this rule 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. 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 13, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12024 Filed 5–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0008; FRL–9910–29] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

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

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.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: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS