[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-6954]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 24, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AK-4-2-6299; FRL-4850-3]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
for the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10). The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by ADEC on June 22,
1993 to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for an
approvable moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP for Mendenhall
Valley, Alaska. EPA is also approving the contingency measures
submitted by the state of Alaska for the Mendenhall Valley and Eagle
River moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. This action to approve
this plan has the effect of making requirements adopted by the ADEC
federally enforceable by EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the materials submitted to EPA may be examined
during normal business hours at: Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Programs Branch, Docket # AK-4-1-6027, 1200 Sixth Avenue, AT-082,
Seattle, Washington 98101; Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, 410 Willoughby, suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation, Docket and Information Center, 6102, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, as well as the above addresses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, Air and Radiation Branch
(AT-082), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (206) 553-1814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Mendenhall Valley, Alaska area was designated nonattainment for
PM10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and
188(a) of the Clean Air Act, upon enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The air
quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title I of the
Act.2 EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions
submitted under title I of the Act, including those state submittals
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements. See
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
\2\Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas. At times, subpart 1 and
subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in this action and supporting information
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 22, 1993 EPA announced its proposed approval of the
moderate nonattainment area PM10 SIP for Mendenhall Valley, Alaska
and the contingency measures submitted for Mendenhall Valley and Eagle
River Alaska (58 FR 13572-13575). In that rulemaking action, EPA
described its interpretations of title 1 and its rationale for
proposing to approve the PM10 SIP revisions, taking into
consideration the specific factual issues presented.
Those states containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas (those areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)(B))
were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions
by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions were due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit
contingency measures by November 15, 1993 which became effective
without further action by the state or EPA, upon a determination by EPA
that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the PM10
NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline (see section 172(c)(9) and
57 FR 13543-13544).
II. Response To Comments
EPA received no comments on its December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67754-
67759) Federal Register proposal to approve the Mendenhall Valley
moderate nonattainment area PM10 SIP and contingency measures for
Mendenhall Valley and Eagle River as revisions.
III. This Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review and processing of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In
this action, EPA is approving the plan submitted to EPA on June 22,
1993 which contains the Mendenhall Valley contingency measures, and the
Eagle River contingency measures submitted to EPA on January 13, 1992.
EPA has determined that the submittals meet all of the applicable
requirements of the Act. Among other things, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation has demonstrated the Mendenhall Valley
moderate PM10 nonattainment area will attain the PM10 NAAQS
by December 31, 1994.
IV. Administrative Review
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of
these tables. On January 6, 1989 the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for two years. The
EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and
Table 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in
effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order
12291 on September 30, 1993.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit May 23, 1994. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)) (See 42 U.S.C. 7607
(b)(2))
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: March 3, 1994.
Gerald A. Emison,
Acting Regional Administrator.
NOTE: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Alaska was approved by the Director of the Office of
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Part 52, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart C--Alaska
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (18) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(18) On June 22, 1993 the Governor of the State of Alaska submitted
revised rules to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements for
an approvable moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP for Mendenhall
Valley, Alaska. Also included in this SIP were PM10 contingency
measures for the Mendenhall Valley. On January 21, 1992 a supplement to
the existing Eagle River PM10 control plan was submitted by ADEC
to EPA and certified on March 8, 1993 by the Lieutenant Governor of
Alaska.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) June 22, 1993 letter from the Governor of the State of Alaska
to EPA, Region 10, submitting the moderate PM10 nonattainment area
SIP for Mendenhall Valley, Alaska.
(B) The Control Plan for Mendenhall Valley of Juneau, effective
July 8, 1993.
(C) August 25, 1993 letter from ADEC showing, through enclosures,
the permanent filing record for the supplement to the existing Eagle
River PM10 control plan. The Lieutenant Governor certified the
supplement on March 8, 1993.
(D) The January 21, 1992 supplement to the existing Eagle River
PM10 control plan, effective April 7, 1993. Also included is an
August 27, 1991 Municipality of Anchorage memorandum listing the 1991
capital improvement project priorities and an October 11, 1991
Muncipality of Anchorage memorandum summarizing the supplement to the
existing PM10 control plan .
[FR Doc. 94-6975 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OR-28-1-5828; FRL-4850-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Emission Statement Implementation Plan
for Oregon
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing full
approval of Oregon's state implementation plan (SIP) submitted for the
purpose of implementing an emission statement program for stationary
sources within the Portland ozone nonattainment area. The
implementation plan was submitted by the state to satisfy the Federal
requirements for an emission statement program as part of the SIP for
Oregon.
DATES: This final rule will be effective on May 23, 1994 unless notice
is received by April 25, 1994 that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Air and Radiation Branch(AT-082), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at the Air and Radiation, Docket and Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 ``M'' Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation Branch,
(Docket # OR 28-1-5828) 1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, Washington
98101, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW.,
Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1390.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, Air and Radiation Branch
(AT-082), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, (206) 553-1814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The air quality planning and state implementation plan (SIP)
requirements for ozone nonattainment and transport areas are set out in
subparts I and II of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act, as amended
by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or ``the Act'').
EPA has also issued a draft guidance document describing the
requirements for the emission statement programs discussed in this
document, entitled ``Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission
Statement Program'' (July, 1992). The Agency is also conducting a
rulemaking process to modify 40 CFR part 40 to reflect the requirements
of the emission statement program.
Section 182 of the Act sets out a graduated control program for
ozone nonattainment areas. Section 182(a) sets out requirements
applicable in Marginal nonattainment areas, which are also made
applicable in subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) to all other ozone
nonattainment areas. Among the requirements in section 182(a) is a
program in paragraph (3) of that subsection for stationary sources to
prepare and submit to the state each year emission statements showing
actual emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOx). This paragraph provides that the states are to
submit a revision to their state implementation plans (SIPs) by
November 15, 1992 establishing this emission statement program.
The CAA requires facilities to submit the first emission statement
to the state within three years after November 15, 1990, and annually
thereafter. The minimum emission statement data should include:
certification of data accuracy; source identification information;
operating schedule; emissions information (to include annual and
typical ozone season day emissions); control equipment information; and
process data. EPA developed emission statement data elements to be
consistent with other source and state reporting requirements. This
consistency is essential to assist states with quality assurance for
emission estimates and to facilitate consolidation of all EPA reporting
requirements.
II. Analysis of State Submission
There are several key general and specific components of an
acceptable emission statement program. Specifically, the state must
submit a revision to its SIP and the emission statement program must
meet the minimum requirements of the CAA. In general, the program must
include, at a minimum, provisions for applicability, definitions,
compliance, and specific source requirements detailed below.
A. SIP Revision Submission
The Act requires states to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing the implementation plans and plan revisions for
submission to EPA. Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act provides
that each implementation plan and plan revision submitted by a state
must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565). EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are
set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by EPA six months after receipt
of the submission.
After providing adequate public notice and holding a public
hearing, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
submitted an emission statement SIP revision on November 16, 1992. A
revised submittal was signed and submitted by the Governor's designee
(Director of ODEQ) on November 15, 1993. Prior to the Director's
signature, the state provided adequate public notice and public
hearings (June 28 and August 17, 1993) on the emission statement SIP
revision. EPA received an official SIP submitted by the Director of
ODEQ on November 15, 1993. The November 15, 1993 submittal wholly
superseded the November 16, 1992 SIP revision and therefore is the
subject of this proposal.
The November 15, 1993 SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as
amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be
complete on December 20, 1993.
B. Program Elements
Oregon's emission statement program contains provisions covering
applicability of the regulations, definitions of key terms used in the
regulations, a compliance schedule for sources covered by the
regulations, and the specific reporting requirements for sources. In
accordance with the Act and with a portion of the suggested guidelines,
Oregon conforms by dictating that the emission statement submitted by
the source should contain, at a minimum, a certification that the
information is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual
certifying the statement, source identification information and
emissions information. The ODEQ requires the submission of data from
the sources no later than February 28 of each year or the due date for
the annual permit report specified in the source's Air Contaminant
Discharge Permit. In addition, sources subject to these rules shall
keep records at the plant site containing all applicable operating
data, process rate data, and control equipment efficiency information
and other information used to calculate or estimate actual emissions,
and shall be available for ODEQ's review, or submitted upon request.
Such records shall be kept by the owner or operator for three calendar
years after submittal of the emission statement.
C. Sources Covered
The states may waive, with EPA approval, the requirement for
emission statements for classes or categories of sources with less than
25 tons per year of actual plant-wide NOx or VOC emissions in
nonattainment areas if the class or category is included in the base
year and periodic inventories and emissions are calculated using
emission factors established by EPA (such as those found in EPA
publication AP-42) or other methods acceptable to EPA. States should
get clearance from the appropriate EPA Regional Office to waive the
emission statement requirement for these smaller sources. Oregon's rule
applies to sources of VOC and NOx in ozone nonattainment areas, with a
Plant Site Emission Limit (PSEL) 25 tons or greater per year for either
pollutant, and to any source whose actual emissions are equal to or
greater than 25 tons per year. EPA believes this is sufficient to meet
the requirements of the CAA.
D. Enforceability
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the state and EPA. The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of
SIP's and SIP revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum
(with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). SIP provisions must also
contain a program that provides for enforcement of the control measures
and other elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C)).
The state of Oregon has a program in its SIP that will ensure that
the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) and sections 184(b)(2) and
182(f) for emission statement measures contained in the SIP are
adequately enforced. The ODEQ will supply sources with guidance and an
example on how to submit emission reports, informing sources to attach
this information with the annual permit report. The enforcement section
of ODEQ will follow through with violators by sending out notices of
compliance and fines accordingly. EPA expects that the state's existing
air enforcement program will be adequate.
III. Final Action
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-66). EPA is approving
Oregon's emission statement SIP revision submitted to EPA on November
15, 1993 because it meets all of the applicable requirements of the
CAA.
IV. Administrative Review
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.SE.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Because EPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine, we
are approving it without prior proposal. The action will become
effective on May 23, 1994. However, if we receive notice by April 25,
1994 that someone wishes to submit adverse comments, then EPA will
publish: (1) A document that withdraws the action; and (2) a document
that begins a new rulemaking by proposing the action and establishing a
comment period.
Nothing is this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions(54 FR 2222) from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2 years. The EPA
has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3
SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until such
time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues under
Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 12291
onSeptember 30, 1993.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 23, 1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not bechallenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2))
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the state of Oregon was approved by the Director of the Office of
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: March 4, 1994.
Gerald A. Emison,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart MM--Oregon
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (102) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1970 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(102) On November 16, 1992 and on November 15, 1993 the Director of
the Department of Environmental Quality submitted Emission Statement
Rules as amendments to the State of Oregon Implementation Plan. The
November 15, 1993 Emission Statement Rules revision to OAR chapter 340,
Division 28, State of Oregon Implementation Plan, superseded the
November 16, 1992 submittal.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) November 16, 1992 letter from Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality to EPA Region 10 submitting the emission
statement SIP revision. This revision was submitted as an amendment to
the State of Oregon Implementation Plan and adopted by the
Environmental Quality Commission on November 10, 1992.
(B) Emission Statement Rules submitted as an amendment to the State
of Oregon Implementation Plan, effective November 12, 1992.
(C) November 15, 1993 letter from Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality to EPA Region 10 submitting a revision to the
Emission Statement Rules. This revision was submitted as an amendment
to the State of Oregon Implementation Plan and adopted by the
Environmental Quality Commission on September 10 and October 29, 1993.
(D) Emission Statement Rules submitted as an amendment to the State
of Oregon Implementation Plan, revising the air quality regulations in
OAR, Chapter 340, Division 28, effective September 24, 1993.
(E) December 20, 1993, Completeness Determination letter to Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality from EPA Region 10, advising that
the November 15, 1993 Emission Statement Rules submittal is a
technically and administratively complete SIP revision.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-6977 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300290A; FRL-4635-5]
RIN 2070-AB78
C.I. Pigment Violet #23 (Carbazole Violet), C.I. Pigment Blue #15,
C.I. Pigment Green #7, and FD & C Red No. 40; Tolerance Exemptions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of C.I. Pigment Violet #23 (Carbazole Violet;
CAS Registry No. 6358-30-1), C.I. Pigment Blue #15 (CAS Registry No.
147-14-8), C.I. Pigment Green #7 (CAS Registry No. 1328-53-6), and FD &
C Red No. 40 (CAS Reg. No. 25956-17-6) when used as inert ingredients
(dyes, coloring agents) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops only.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on March 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number [OPP-300290A], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the document
control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to:
Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees
accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees''
and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Levine, Registration Support
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460. Office location and telephone number: 2800 Crystal Dr., 6th Fl.,
North Tower, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8393.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of June 30, 1993 (58
FR 34973), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice that Becker-
Underwood, Inc., 801 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010, had submitted
pesticide petitions (PP) 2E4129, 2E4130, and 2E4131 requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.1001(d) by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of C.I. Pigment Violet #23 (Carbazole Violet; Cas Registry No.
6358-30-1), C.I. Pigment Blue #15 (CAS Registry No. 147-14-8), and C.I.
Pigment Green #7 (CAS Registry No. 1328-53-6) when used as inert
ingredients (dyes, coloring agents) in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops only. The proposal also noted that Gustafson, Inc.,
P.O. Box 660065, Dallas, TX 75266-0065, had requested a tolerance
exemption for FD & C Red No. 40 (CAS Reg. No. 25956-17-6).
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
One comment was received in response to the proposed rule. The
commenter was concerned that there would be inadequate monitoring of
impurities in the pigments and dyes. Specifically, the commenter cited
the possibility of toxic contaminants contained in C.I. Pigment Violet
#23, C.I. Pigment Green #7, and C.I. Pigment Blue #15 as a result of
the manufacturing processes used. The commenter addressed the possible
contamination of C.I. Pigment Violet #23 with polychlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxin and/or polychlorinated dibenzofuran (as a result of the basic
reactant chloranil) and contamination of C.I. Pigment Green #7 and C.I.
Pigment Blue #15 with polychlorinated biphenyls. The commenter
requested that a mechanism be included in the regulation to ensure that
pigments made from contaminated intermediates not be sanctioned.
As a result of this comment, the Agency has included previously
specified limits (Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), published in the
Federal Register of May 12, 1993 (58 FR 27980)) in the regulations for
C.I. Pigment Violet #23, C.I. Pigment Blue #15, and C.I. Pigment Green
#7 restricting the contamination of C.I. Pigment Violet #23 by
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans,
and restricting the contamination of C.I. Pigment Blue #15 and C.I.
Pigment Green #7 by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)s. These limits were
developed to bar use of contaminated intermediates in the production of
these pigments. In addition, the exemptions for C.I. Pigment Violet
#23, C.I. Pigment #15, and C.I. Pigment #7 have also been limited to
seed treatment, as originally requested by Becker-Underwood, Inc.
The data submitted in the proposal and other relevant material have
been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the data
and information considered, the Agency concludes that the tolerance
exemption will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance
exemption is establised as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections and/or request a hearing with the Hearing Clerk, at
the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections and/
or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be submitted to
the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The objections submitted must
specify the provisions of the regulation deemed objectionable and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each objection must be
accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is
requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual
issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the
objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing will be granted if
the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the
following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a
reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established, resolve one or more of such issues in
favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts
to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner
sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action
requested (40 CFR 178.32).
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State local, or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or recipients
thereof, or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the
Administrator has determined that regulations establishing new
tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from
tolerance requirements do not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A certification statement to this
effect was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR
24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Recording and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 15, 1994.
Douglas D. Campt,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001(d) is amended by adding and alphabetically
inserting the inert ingredients, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirements of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
C.I. Pigment Blue #15 For seed treament Dye, coloring agent
(CAS Reg. No. 147-14-8; use only.
containing no more than
50 ppm polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)).
C.I. Pigment Green #7 For seed treatment Dye, coloring agent
(CAS Reg. No. 1328-53-6; use only.
containing no more than
50 ppm polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)).
C.I. Pigment Violet #23 For seed treatment Dye, coloring agent
(CAS Registry No. 6358- use only.
30-1; containing no more
than 20 ppb of
polychlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins and/or
polychlorinated
dibenzofurans).
* * * * * * *
FD & C Red No. 40 (CAS For seed treatment Dye, coloring agent.
Reg. No. 25956-17-6). use only. Not to
exceed 2% by
weight of the
pesticide
formulation..
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-6953 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2E4094/R2044; FRL-4761-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
Pesticide Tolerance for Metsulfuron Methyl
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes a tolerance for the combined
residues of the herbicide metsulfuron methyl and its metabolite in or
on the raw agricultural commodity sugarcane. The regulation to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of the herbicide in
or on the commodity was requested in a petition submitted by the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on March 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and requests for a hearing, identified by
the document control number, [PP 2E4094/R2044], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
document control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
request to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson, Emergency
Response and Minor Use Section (7505W), Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 6th Floor,
Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202,
(703)-308-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 8, 1993
(58 FR 64536), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice that the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural
Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
08903, had submitted pesticide petition 2E4094 to EPA on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Station of Hawaii requesting the Administrator
under section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 346a(e)) to propose establishing a tolerance for residues of
metsulfuron methyl (methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl)amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl] benzoate) and its metabolite methyl
2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-
yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-4-hydroxybenzoate in or on the raw
agricultural commodity sugarcane at 0.05 part per million (ppm).
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
The data submitted relevant to the proposal and other relevant
material have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based
on the data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections and/or request a hearing with the Hearing Clerk, at
the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections and/
or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be submitted to
the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The objections submitted must
specify the provisions of the regulation deemed objectionable and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each objection must be
accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is
requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual
issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions
on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the
objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing will be granted if
the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the
following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a
reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the
requestor would, if established, resolve one or more of such issues in
favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts
to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner
sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action
requested (40 CFR 178.32).
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 14, 1994.
Douglas D. Campt,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.428, paragraph (a) table is amended by adding and
alphabetically inserting the raw agricultural commodity sugarcane, to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.428 Metsulfuron methyl; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
Sugarcane.................................................. 0.05
*****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-6954 Filed 3-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
