Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41343 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 26, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–16950 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0299, FRL–9700–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Dakota: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule; PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the North Dakota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to 

regulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 

and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under 

North Dakota’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. This 

revision was submitted by the North 

Dakota Department of Health Division of 

Air Quality (ND DOH DAQ) to EPA on 

April 18, 2011. It is intended to align 

North Dakota’s regulations with the 

‘‘PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Final Rule’’ and the final rule 

for ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for PM2.5.’’ EPA 

is proposing to approve the revision 

because the Agency has made the 

preliminary determination that the SIP 

revision, already adopted by North 

Dakota as a final effective rule, is in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs and PM2.5. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0299, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop St., Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0299. 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 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an anonymous access system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an 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 and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

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

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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 St., Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 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: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St., 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7814, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing in today’s 

notice? 

II. What is the background for the PSD SIP 

approval proposed by EPA in today’s 

notice? 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

B. PM2.5-Related Actions 

C. North Dakota’s Actions 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North Dakota’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing in 

today’s notice? 

On April 18, 2011, ND DOH 

submitted a request to EPA to approve 

revisions to the State’s SIP and Title V 

program to incorporate recent rule 

amendments adopted by the ND DOH 

DAQ. These adopted rules became 

effective in the North Dakota 

Administrative Code on that date. 

Among other things, the amendments 

establish thresholds for GHG emissions 

in North Dakota’s PSD and Title V 

regulations at the same emissions 

thresholds and in the same time-frames 

as those specified by EPA in the ‘‘PSD 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Final Rule’’ (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule,’’ ensuring that smaller GHG 

sources emitting less than these 

thresholds will not be subject to 

permitting requirements for GHGs that 

they emit. The requested revisions to 

the SIP will clarify the applicable 

thresholds in the North Dakota SIP and 

incorporate state rule changes adopted 

at the state level into the federallyapproved SIP. 

The revisions to the SIP also address 

requirements for PSD programs with 

regard to emissions of PM2.5. These 

requirements were specified by EPA in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

41344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

2 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

3 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (Apr. 2, 2010). 

4 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

5Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those 

states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs 

but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to 

submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75 

FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). EPA made findings 

of failure to submit in some states which were 

unable to submit the required SIP revision by their 

deadlines, and finalized FIPs for such states. See, 

e.g. ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure 

Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because 

North Dakota’s SIP already authorized North Dakota 

to regulate GHGs at the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

once GHGs became subject to PSD requirements on 

January 2, 2011, North Dakota is not subject to the 

SIP Call or FIP. 

the rule, ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers PM2.5 (PM2.5)’’ (73 FR 

28321, May 16, 2008), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule.’’ In today’s 

notice, pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA, EPA is proposing to approve these 

revisions into the North Dakota SIP. 

Approval of Title V program revisions is 

handled separately because the Title V 

program is not part of the SIP. 

North Dakota also submitted revisions 

to the General Provisions (Section 33– 

15–01–04), Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (Sections 33–15–02–04.1 and 

33–15–02–07, and Tables 1 and 2), and 

Designated Air Contaminant Sources, 

Permit to Construct, Minor Source 

Permit to Operate, Title V Permit to 

Operate (Sections 33–15–14–01.9, 10, 12 

and 15, 33–15–14–02.1, 33–15–14–02.13 

and 33–15–14–03.1.c). In today’s 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to take action on those 

submittals. EPA will consider those 

provisions and any proposed or final 

actions in a rulemaking separate from 

today’s proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for the PSD 

SIP approval proposed by EPA in 

today’s notice? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG and PM2.5-related actions 

that provide the background for today’s 

proposed action. More detailed 

discussion of the background is found 

in the preambles for those actions. In 

particular, for GHGs the background is 

contained in the PSD SIP Narrowing 

Rule,1 and in the preambles to the 

actions cited therein. 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s proposed 

action on the North Dakota SIP. Four of 

these actions include, as they are 

commonly called, the ‘‘Endangerment 

Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or Contribute 

Finding,’’ which EPA issued in a single 

final action,2 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 3 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 4 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

PSD is implemented through the SIP 

system. In December 2010, EPA 

promulgated several rules to implement 

the new GHG PSD SIP program. 

Recognizing that some states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP 

Call and, for some of these states, a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).5

Recognizing that other states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do 

not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to 

the higher thresholds in the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA issued the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA 

withdrew its approval of the affected 

SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered 

GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its 

action primarily on the ‘‘error 

correction’’ provisions of CAA section 

110(k)(6). 

B. PM2.5-Related Actions 

On May 16, 2008, EPA issued final 

rules governing the implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) program 

for particulate matter less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), also 

known as fine particles. The PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule finalized several 

NSR program requirements for sources 

that emit PM2.5 and other pollutants that 

contribute to PM2.5, including; 

pollutants that contribute to PM2.5 that 

are subject to NSR regulations, major 

source thresholds, significant emissions 

rates, interpollutant offset trading, 

revised SIP submittal deadlines and 

timing of implementation of the rule. 

The rule requires PSD permits to 

address directly emitted PM2.5 as well as 

pollutants responsible for secondary 

formation of PM2.5 as follows: 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2)—regulated as a 

PM2.5 precursor 

• Nitrogen oxides (NOX)—regulated as a 

PM2.5 precursor unless a state 

demonstrates that NOX emissions are 

not a significant contributor to the 

formation of PM2.5 for an area in the 

state 

• Volatile organic compounds (VOC)— 

not regulated as a PM2.5 precursor 

unless a state demonstrates that VOC 

emissions are a significant contributor 

to the formation of PM2.5 for an area 

in the state 

C. North Dakota’s Actions 

On June 21, 2010, North Dakota 

provided a letter to EPA, in accordance 

with a request to all states from EPA in 

the Tailoring Rule, with confirmation 

that the State of North Dakota has the 

authority to regulate GHGs in its 

existing SIP-approved PSD program at 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The letter 

also confirmed North Dakota’s intent to 

amend its air quality rules for the PSD 

program for GHGs to explicitly match 

the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. 

See the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking for a copy of North Dakota’s 

letter. 

The rulemaking docket includes a 

Dec. 14, 2010 memo from EPA Region 

8 that documents communications 

between EPA and the State of North 

Dakota, with regard to the question of 

whether the state believed that it needed 

the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. The state’s 

60-day response letter to EPA, dated 

June 21, 2010, stated, in part, ‘‘The 

Department believes it has existing 

authority to issue both PSD and Title V 

permits for sources of greenhouse gases 

based on the applicability thresholds 

specified in the tailoring rule.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 41345 

Therefore, the state believed the 

narrowing rule was unnecessary for 

North Dakota. As a result, North Dakota 

was not subject to the PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of North 

Dakota’s proposed SIP revision? 

On April 18, 2011, ND DOH DAQ 

submitted a revision of its regulations to 

EPA for processing and approval into 

the SIP. This SIP revision explicitly 

adopts the GHG emission thresholds for 

PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule. EPA’s approval of North 

Dakota’s SIP revision will incorporate 

the revisions of the North Dakota 

regulations into the Federally-approved 

SIP. Doing so will clarify the applicable 

thresholds in the North Dakota SIP. 

The proposed SIP revision establishes 

thresholds for determining which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

North Dakota’s PSD program. 

Specifically, North Dakota’s proposed 

SIP revision includes changes—which 

are already state effective—to North 

Dakota’s Administrative Code, revising 

chapter 33–15–15 ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air 

Quality,’’ subsection 33–15–15–01.2 

‘‘Scope.’’ 

In subsection 33–15–15–01.2, North 

Dakota implements the PSD program by, 

for the most part, incorporating by 

reference the federal PSD program at 40 

CFR 52.21. Under the current SIP, the 

federal PSD program is incorporated as 

it existed on August 1, 2007. Under the 

proposed SIP revision, the federal PSD 

program as it existed on July 2, 2010 is 

incorporated by reference. This includes 

revisions to the federal PSD program 

that were published as a final rule in the 

Federal Register by this date but had 

not yet been published in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

Tailoring Rule, including the necessary 

revisions to the federal PSD program, 

was published as a final rule in the 

Federal Register on June 3, 2010, and 

on July 1, 2010, the Tailoring Rule 

revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 were noted in 

the published version of the CFR. The 

proposed SIP revision therefore 

incorporates the PSD requirements of 

the Tailoring Rule. 

Similarly, the revision incorporates, 

for the most part, the PSD requirements 

of the PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule 

(promulgated May 16, 2011) as reflected 

in 40 CFR 52.21, with one exception. 

North Dakota has modified the language 

in the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5) 

regarding PM2.5 precursor 

presumptions. The modification 

explicitly establishes that nitrogen 

oxides are a precursor to PM2.5 and that 

volatile organic compounds are not a 

precursor to PM2.5. In other words, the 

State has not attempted to demonstrate 

that nitrogen oxides are not a significant 

contributor to ambient PM2.5

concentrations or that volatile organic 

compounds are a significant contributor 

to ambient PM2.5 concentrations. This 

approach is consistent with the PM2.5

NSR Implementation Rule. Finally, as a 

result of the updated incorporation by 

reference, North Dakota has also 

adopted the clarified definition of 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ promulgated by 

EPA on December 21, 2007 (72 FR 

72607). 

North Dakota removed language that 

had previously been added to 40 CFR 

52.21(o)(1) for two reasons: to make this 

requirement entirely consistent with 

federal rules and to provide flexibility to 

use current methodologies 

recommended by Federal Land 

Managers. Chapter 33–15–19 is still 

applicable to major sources or major 

modifications under PSD; however, the 

revised PSD rules in Chapter 33–15–15 

do not bind North Dakota to Chapter 

33–15–19 for the visibility analysis. 

North Dakota is currently a SIPapproved state for the PSD program, and 

has previously incorporated EPA’s 2002 

NSR reform revisions for PSD into its 

SIP. See 72 FR 39564 (July 19, 2007). 

The changes to North Dakota’s PSD 

program regulations are substantively 

the same as the federal provisions 

amended in EPA’s Tailoring Rule and 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. As 

part of its review of North Dakota’s 

submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line 

review of North Dakota’s proposed 

revision and has preliminarily 

determined that it is consistent with the 

Tailoring Rule and PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule. 

IV. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve North 

Dakota’s April 18, 2011 revisions to the 

North Dakota SIP, relating to PSD 

requirements for GHG- and PM2.5- 

emitting sources. Specifically, North 

Dakota’s proposed SIP revision 

establishes appropriate emissions 

thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability to new and modified GHGemitting sources in accordance with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The proposed SIP 

revision also satisfies PSD requirements 

for treatment of PM2.5 in accordance 

with EPA’s PM2.5 NSR Implementation 

Rule. As a result, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable. 

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 

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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action 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 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

41346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 3, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17141 Filed 7–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0524; FRL–9353–9] 

Trinexapac-ethyl; Proposed Pesticide 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the existing trinexapac-ethyl 

tolerance levels for wheat, forage and 

wheat, middlings as well as change the 

commodity definition for hog, kidney. 

Additionally the EPA proposes to 

establish tolerances for residues of 

trinexapac-ethyl in or on barley, bran; 

sugarcane, molasses; and wheat, bran 

under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0524 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), Mail Code: 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: 

Bethany Benbow, Registration Division 

(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 347–8072; email address: 

benbow.bethany@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. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or 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. 

II. This Proposal 

EPA on its own initiative, under 

FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 

346a(e), is proposing to amend the 

existing trinexapac-ethyl tolerances for 

wheat, forage from 1.5 to 1.0 parts per 

million (ppm) and wheat, middlings 

from 6.5 to 10.5 ppm, as well as change 

the existing commodity definition for 

‘‘hog, kidney’’ to ‘‘hog, meat byproducts’’ as these changes are needed 

to correct inadvertent typographical 

errors listed in the final rule tolerance 

table for trinexapac-ethyl that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 2, 2012 (77 FR 12740) (FRL– 

9337–9). 

Additionally, the Agency is proposing 

to establish tolerances for residues of 

trinexapac-ethyl in or on barley, bran at 

2.5 ppm; sugarcane, molasses at 2.5 

ppm; and wheat, bran at 6.0 ppm based 

on the following: 

The final rule for trinexapac-ethyl that 

was published in the Federal Register of 

March 2, 2012, established tolerances 

for trinexapac-ethyl residues on the raw 

agricultural commodities of barley, 

sugarcane and wheat; however, 

tolerances for certain processed 

commodities (barley, bran; sugarcane, 

molasses; and wheat, bran) were not 

established in that final rule. Though 

these processed commodity tolerances 

were not proposed in the petition 

submitted to the Agency by the 

registrant, Syngenta Crop Protection, 

Inc., EPA determined they were needed 

in conjunction with establishing the raw 

agricultural commodity tolerances on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS