Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska

Federal RegisterMar 24, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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.

* * * * *

(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.

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.

* * * * *

(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.

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.