34816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 126. While the 

tribes do not operate an ozone monitor, 

the nearest ozone monitors to Fort Hall 

Reservation are in Ada County, Idaho; 

Boise area (AQS site IDs 160010010 and 

160010017) and Butte County, Idaho; 

Idaho Falls (AQS site ID 160230101). 

Past and present design values for ozone 

are complete, valid and below the 

current standard. The EPA’s modeled 

2023 average and maximum design 

values suggest these ozone 

concentrations will continue to decline. 

We therefore propose to find that it is 

reasonable to conclude that emissions 

from Washington will not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2015 

ozone NAAQS at the Fort Hall 

Reservation. A memorandum 

summarizing our evaluation can be 

found in the docket for this action. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, 

Washington concluded that emissions 

from the state will not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS in any other state. The EPA’s 

updated modeling, discussed in Section 

III confirms this finding. We are 

proposing to approve the Washington 

SIP as meeting CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is 

requesting comments on the proposed 

approval. 

V. 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, the 

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 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 SIP approvals are 

exempted 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 the 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 11, 2018. 

Chris Hladick, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15625 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0388, FRL–9980– 

67—Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Monitoring 

Requirements for the 2008 Pb, 2010 

SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of Utah to 

demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure monitoring requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008, nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010, 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010, 

and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on 

December 14, 2012. Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state submit 

a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2018–0388 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from 

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34817 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. The EPA requests that if at 

all possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Gregory, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6175, 

gregory.kate@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

I. Background 

On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised 

the level of the primary and secondary 

Pb NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 (73 

FR 66964, Nov. 12, 2008). On January 

22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 

1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a 

level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), 

based on a 3-year average of 98th 

percentile 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, while retaining the 

annual primary standard of 53 ppb. The 

secondary annual NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged at 53 ppb (75 FR 6474, Feb. 

9, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

standard at 75 ppb, based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations 

(75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). Finally, 

on December 14, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a revised annual PM2.5

standard by lowering the level to 12.0 

mg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5

standard at a level of 35 mg/m3 (78 FR 

3086, Jan. 15, 2013). 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure their SIPs 

provide for implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of the 

NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for PM2.5, Pb, NO2

and SO2 already meet those 

requirements. The EPA highlighted this 

statutory requirement in an October 2, 

2007, guidance document entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, the 

EPA issued an additional guidance 

document pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 

Memo), followed by the October 14, 

2011, ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

the EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on 

September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo). 

II. What is the scope of this 

rulemaking? 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Utah that address the 

infrastructure monitoring requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

for the 2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2

and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA; ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A; and nonattainment 

new source review (NSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

Examples of some of these 

ambiguities and the context in which 

the EPA interprets the ambiguous 

portions of section 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) are discussed at length in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 

NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; South Dakota (79 FR 71040, 

Dec. 1, 2014) under ‘‘III. What is the 

Scope of this Rulemaking?’’ 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34818 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016). 3 81 FR 50626 (August 2, 2016). 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA 

and the EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be 

contrary to the CAA because they 

purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of the EPA’s 

‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 

80186, Dec. 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2)? 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. Section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP 

must contain or satisfy. These 

infrastructure elements (listed below) 

include requirements such as modeling, 

monitoring and emissions inventories, 

which are designed to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources 

and authority, conflict of interest, and 

oversight of local governments and 

regional agencies. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

Of these infrastructure elements, 

element B is the subject of this action, 

as all other elements were acted on in 

the EPA rulemaking titled Promulgation 

of State Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Utah.2 A detailed 

discussion of element 110(a)(2)(B) is 

contained in the next section. 

IV. How did Utah address the 

infrastructure elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

The Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality (Department or 

UDEQ) submitted certification of Utah’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS on January 19, 2012; 2010 NO2

NAAQS on January 31, 2013; 2010 SO2

NAAQS on June 2, 2013; and 2012 PM2.5

on December 4, 2015. Utah’s 

infrastructure certifications demonstrate 

how the State, where applicable, has 

plans in place that meet the 

requirements of section 110 for the 2008 

Pb, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. These plans reference the Utah 

Code Annotated (UCA) and the Utah 

SIP. These submittals are available 

within the electronic docket for today’s 

proposed action at www.regulations.gov. 

The UCA and the Utah SIP referenced 

in the submittals are publicly available 

at http://le.utah.gov/xcode/code.html 

and https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/lawsand-rules/air-quality/sip/. Air pollution 

control regulations and statutes that 

have been previously approved by the 

EPA and incorporated into the Utah SIP 

can be found at 40 CFR 52.2320. 

V. Analysis of the State Submittals 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

SIPs to ‘‘provide for establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices, 

methods, systems, and procedures 

necessary’’ to ‘‘(i) monitor, compile, and 

analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

(ii) upon request, make such data 

available to the Administrator.’’ 

The State’s submissions cite UAC rule 

R307–110–5, which incorporates by 

reference SIP Section IV (Ambient Air 

Monitoring Program), and provides a 

brief description of the purposes of the 

air monitoring program approved by the 

EPA in the early 1980s and most 

recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744). 

Pursuant to its Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP), the Department 

makes arrangements to operate and 

maintain federal reference monitors and 

establishes federally-approved protocols 

for sample collection, handling and 

analysis. The State’s QAPP was most 

recently approved on November 28, 

2016, with an annual update in 

November of 2017. 

Utah’s annual monitoring network 

plan (AMNP), is made available by the 

Department for public review and 

comment prior to submission to the 

EPA. Additionally, the State of Utah 

submits data to the EPA’s Air Quality 

System database in accordance with 40 

CFR 58.16. Finally, Utah’s 2017 AMNP 

was approved by the EPA through a 

letter dated October 27, 2017 (available 

within the docket). The State provides 

the EPA with prior notification when 

changes to its monitoring network or 

plan are being considered. This action 

proposes to approve the State’s 

submittal in reference to element B: 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

system. Previous action was not taken in 

the final EPA ruling titled Promulgation 

of State Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards; Utah.3

We find that Utah’s SIP and practices 

are adequate for the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system 

requirements and therefore propose to 

approve the infrastructure SIP for the 

2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS for this element. 

Approval of element B will satisfy any 

outstanding requirements under Section 

110(a)(2). 

VI. What proposed action is the EPA 

taking? 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

approve infrastructure element B for the 

2008 Pb, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS from the State’s 

certifications as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—LIST OF UTAH INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT THE EPA IS

PROPOSING TO APPROVE

Proposed for approval Element 

January 19, 2012 submittal—2008 

Pb NAAQS .................................. (B) 

January 31, 2013 submittal—2010 

NO2 NAAQS ................................ (B) 

June 2, 2013 submittal—2010 SO2

NAAQS ........................................ (B) 

December 4, 2015 submittal—2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS ............................. (B) 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting federal requirements and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34819 

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 

regulatory action because this action is 

not significant 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 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide the 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 13, 2018. 

Debra Thomas, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15480 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0941; FRL–9979–23] 

Proposed Modification of Significant 

New Uses of a Certain Chemical 

Substance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This action is a notification 

that additional data has been added to 

the docket for the proposal to amend the 

significant new use rule (SNUR) under 

section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) for oxazolidine, 

3,3′-methylenebis [5-methyl-. This 

action also reopens the comment period 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comments based on the additional data 

added to the docket. The proposal 

would amend the SNUR to allow certain 

new uses reported in the significant new 

use notice (SNUN) without requiring 

additional SNUNs and make the lack of 

certain worker protections a new use. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 22, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0941, 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: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Kenneth 

Moss, Chemical Control Division, Office 

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

564–9232; email address: 

moss.kenneth@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or use the chemical substance contained 

in this rule. 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: 

• Manufacturers or processors of the 

chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 

and 324110), e.g., chemical 

manufacturing and petroleum refineries. 

This action may also affect certain 

entities through pre-existing import 

certification and export notification 

rules under TSCA. Chemical importers 

are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 

U.S.C. 2612) import certification 

requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 

12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 

127.28. Chemical importers must certify 

that the shipment of the chemical 

substance complies with all applicable 

rules and orders under TSCA. Importers 

of chemicals subject to a SNUR must 

certify their compliance with the SNUR 

requirements. The EPA policy in 

support of import certification appears 

at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In 

addition, any persons who export or 

intend to export a chemical substance 

that is the subject of a proposed or final 

SNUR are subject to the export 

notification provisions of TSCA section 

12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), 

and must comply with the export 

notification requirements in 40 CFR part 

707, subpart D. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1