Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60813

E.O. 11295, 3 CFR, 1966–1970 Comp., p 570; 

sec. 236, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–430; 18 U.S.C. 1621(a)(2).

■ 2. Revise § 51.27(b)(2)(iii)(B) to read as 

follows:

§ 51.27 Minors.

* * * * *

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) A notarized written statement or 

notarized affidavit from the nonapplying parent or guardian, if 

applicable, consenting to the issuance of 

the passport.

* * * * *

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

Daniel B. Smith, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Consular 

Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04–22937 Filed 10–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OGC–2004–0004; FRL–7826–2] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 

Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and 

Battery Stacks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On April 14, 2003, pursuant 

to section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), the EPA issued national 

emission standards to control hazardous 

air pollutants emitted from pushing, 

quenching, and battery stacks at new 

and existing coke oven batteries. This 

action amends the parametric operating 

limits and associated compliance 

provisions for capture systems used to 

control emissions from pushing. This 

action also amends the requirements for 

mobile scrubber cars that capture 

emissions which occur during pushing 

and travel.

DATES: The direct final rule 

amendments will be effective on 

January 11, 2005, unless we receive 

significant adverse comments by 

November 12, 2004, or by November 29, 

2004 if a public hearing is requested. If 

such comments are received, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register indicating which 

provisions will become effective and 

which provisions are being withdrawn 

due to adverse comment. Any distinct 

amendment, paragraph, or section of the 

final amendments for which we do not 

receive adverse comment will become 

effective on January 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OGC–2004–

0004, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Website: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Proposed Settlement 

Agreement in AISI/ACCCI Coke Oven 

Environmental Task Force v. U.S. EPA,

No. 03–1167 (DC Cir.) Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, 

DC. 20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OGC–2004–0004. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket, 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 EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

information, such as copyrighted 

materials, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy form at the docket entitled 

‘‘Proposed Settlement Agreement in 

AISI/ACCCI Coke Oven Environmental 

Task Force v. U.S. EPA, No. 03–1167 

(DC Cir.),’’ Docket ID No. OGC–2004–

0004, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lula Melton, Emission Standards 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C439–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541–2910, fax 

number (919) 541–3207, e-mail address: 

melton.lula@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry .................................................................... 331111, 324199 .................................... Coke plants and integrated iron and steel mills. 

Federal government ................................................. ................................................................ Not affected. 

60814 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

1The final rule should not be confused with the 

MACT standards for coke oven doors, lids, offtake 

systems, and charging which are the subject of 

special statutory provisions (CAA section 112(d)(8), 

112(i)(8)). The EPA adopted MACT standards for 

those emission points in 1993 (58 FR 57898, 

October 27, 1993), and recently proposed residual 

risk standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) for 

these sources (69 FR 68338, August 9, 2004).

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

State/local/tribal government ................................... ................................................................ Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 

§ 63.7281 of the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for coke ovens: Pushing, 

quenching, and battery stacks. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

Do not submit information containing 

CBI to EPA through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention 

Docket ID No. OGC–2004–0004. 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 

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. 

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of today’s 

final amendments is also available on 

the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following the Administrator’s 

signature, a copy of the final 

amendments will be placed on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. If more information 

regarding the TTN is needed, call the 

TTN HELP line at (919) 541–5384. 

D. What Are the Judicial Review 

Requirements? 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of the final amendments 

is available only by filing a petition for 

review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit by 

December 13, 2004. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an 

objection to the final amendments that 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

can be raised during judicial review. 

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the 

CAA, the requirements established by 

the final amendments may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce these requirements. 

E. Why Are We Publishing the 

Amendments as a Direct Final Rule? 

We are publishing the amendments as 

a direct final rule without prior proposal 

because we view the amendments as 

noncontroversial and do not anticipate 

adverse comments. However, in the 

Proposed Rules section of this Federal 

Register, we are publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

for the amendments contained in the 

direct final rule in the event that 

significant adverse comments are filed. 

If we receive any significant adverse 

comments on one or more distinct 

amendments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public which provisions 

will become effective and which 

provisions are being withdrawn due to 

adverse comment. We will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule (should 

we decide to issue a final rule). We will 

not institute a second comment period 

on the direct final rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

F. How Is This Document Organized?

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

II. Background 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments 

A. What changes are we making as a result 

of the settlement agreement? 

B. What other changes are we making? 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Impacts 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act

II. Background 

On April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18008), we 

issued national emission standards for 

the control of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from pushing, quenching, and 

battery stacks at new and existing coke 

oven batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

CCCCC). The NESHAP implements 

section 112(d) of the CAA by requiring 

all major sources to meet HAP emission 

standards reflecting application of the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT).1

After publication of the final rule, the 

American Iron and Steel Institute 

(AISI)/American Coke and Coal 

Chemicals Institute (ACCCI) Coke Oven 

Environmental Task Force (COETF) 

filed a petition for review challenging 

the final standards (AISI/ACCCI Coke 

Oven Environmental Task Force v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, no. 

03–1167, D.C. Cir.). The petitioners 

raised issues concerning: 

• The provisions requiring owners or 

operators of coke plants having a 

pushing emission control device to 

install, operate and maintain devices to 

monitor daily average fan motor amps, 

(or volumetric flow rate at the inlet of 

the control device and maintain daily 

average volumetric flow rate) at or above 

minimum levels established during 

initial performance tests. These 

provisions are included in 40 CFR 

63.7290, 63.7323(c), 63.7326(a)(4), 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60815

63.7330(d), 63.7331(g) and (h), and 

63.7333(d). 

• The provisions requiring monthly 

inspections of pressure sensors, 

dampers, damper switches and other 

equipment important to the 

performance of the total emissions 

capture system which also require that 

a facility’s operation and maintenance 

plan include requirements to repair any 

defect or deficiency in the capture 

system before the next scheduled 

inspection. These provisions are 

included in 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(1). 

The EPA and the petitioners 

anticipate that certain amendments to 

the final rule will resolve COETF’s 

concerns. These amendments are set out 

in attachment A to a proposed 

settlement agreement between EPA and 

COETF. In accordance with section 

113(g) of the CAA, EPA published a 

notice of the proposed settlement 

agreement (69 FR 31372, June 3, 2004) 

and provided a 30-day comment period 

which ended July 6, 2004. The EPA 

received no comments on the proposed 

settlement agreement. Under the terms 

of the proposed settlement agreement, 

EPA must submit proposed 

amendments for publication in the 

Federal Register within 90 days after 

review of public comments received in 

response to the notice of the settlement 

agreement. Within 120 days after the 

close of the comment period on the 

proposal, EPA must submit for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

notice setting forth the Administrator’s 

final decision on the issues covered by 

the proposal.

Concurrent with development of the 

proposed settlement agreement, a coke 

manufacturer constructing a new nonrecovery plant noticed a gap in the 

promulgated rule. The new source is 

being constructed with a type of 

emission control system that is not 

addressed in the final rule. Therefore, 

the source requested EPA to develop an 

appropriate emission limit for that 

control system. In response, we are 

broadening the applicability of an 

existing emissions limit to include the 

control system and are adding 

appropriate implementation and 

compliance provisions. 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments 

A. What Changes Are We Making in 

Response to the Settlement Agreement? 

The petitioners argued that the 

operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7290(3)(i) 

of the final rule for capture systems 

applied to pushing emissions (which 

requires the plant to maintain the daily 

average fan motor amperage at or above 

a certain level) was inappropriate for 

systems that did not use an electric 

motor to drive the fan. We agree with 

the petitioners because there are a few 

fans that are not powered by an electric 

motor. In response, we are amending the 

operating limit in 40 CFR 

63.7290(b)(3)(i) to state that the 

requirement applies to capture systems 

that use an electric motor to drive the 

fan. We are adding a new operating 

limit in 40 CFR 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) that is 

appropriate for assessing the proper 

operation of a capture system that does 

not use an electric motor to drive the 

fan. The new operating limit requires 

the owner or operator to maintain the 

daily average static pressure at the inlet 

to the control device at an equal or 

greater vacuum than the level 

established during the initial 

performance test, or to maintain the 

daily average fan revolutions per minute 

(RPM) at or above the minimum level 

established during the initial 

performance test. We also renumbered 

the existing operating limit for the daily 

average volumetric flow rate in 40 CFR 

63.7290(b)(3)(ii) as 40 CFR 

63.7290(b)(3). 

We also are adding requirements to 

the final rule for demonstrating initial 

and continuous compliance with the 

new operating limit for daily average 

static pressure or fan RPM. To establish 

the operating limit, a new procedure in 

40 CFR 63.7323(c)(3) requires that the 

static pressure at the inlet of the control 

device or fan RPM during each push 

sampled for each particulate matter 

(PM) test run during the performance 

test be measured and recorded. The 

operating limit for static pressure is the 

minimum vacuum recorded during any 

of the three runs that meets the emission 

limit. The operating limit for fan RPM 

is the lowest RPM recorded during any 

of the three runs that meets the emission 

limit. To demonstrate initial 

compliance, a new provision in 40 CFR 

63.7326(a)(4) requires that the owner or 

operator have a record of the static 

pressure at the inlet of the control 

device or fan RPM measured during the 

performance test. To demonstrate 

continuous compliance, 40 CFR 

63.7330(d) requires the owner or 

operator to monitor the static pressure 

or the fan RPM at all times according to 

the requirements in 40 CFR 63.7331(i), 

which requires a device to measure 

static pressure at the inlet of the control 

device or the fan RPM. A new provision 

in 40 CFR 63.7333(d) requires the owner 

or operator to maintain the daily average 

static pressure at the inlet to the control 

device at an equal or greater vacuum 

than established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test, or to 

maintain the daily average fan RPM at 

or above the minimum level established 

during the initial or subsequent 

performance test. The owner or operator 

also must check the static pressure or 

fan RPM at least every 8 hours to verify 

the daily average static pressure at the 

inlet to the control device, or the daily 

average fan RPM, is at or above the 

required values and to record the results 

of each check. We also made 

conforming amendments in each of the 

affected sections to account for changes 

in the regulatory citations. 

The petitioners also argued that the 

provision in 40 CFR 63.7300(c)(1), 

which requires that the operation and 

maintenance plan include requirements 

to repair any defect or deficiency in the 

capture system before the next 

scheduled inspection, is unreasonable. 

We agree because there are a few repairs 

that may require more than 30 days to 

complete. Therefore, we are replacing 

the provision to complete all repairs 

within 30 days after the defect or 

deficiency is found to allow more time 

when necessary. If the repairs cannot be 

completed within 30 days, the owner or 

operator must estimate the number of 

days in which repairs can be completed. 

We developed provisions for two 

additional situations (i.e., one for 

repairs that can be made within 60 days 

and one for repairs that will take longer 

than 60 days). 

If repairs can be completed within 60 

days from the date that the problem is 

discovered, the owner or operator must 

submit a written notice to the permitting 

authority within 30 days after the date 

that the problem is discovered. The 

notice must contain specific 

information, including a description of 

the defect or deficiency, the steps 

needed to correct the problem, the 

interim steps needed to mitigate the 

emissions impact of the defect or 

deficiency, and an explanation of why 

the repairs cannot be completed within 

30 days from the date that the problem 

is discovered.

If the repairs cannot be completed 

within 60 days, the owner or operator 

must submit a written request to the 

permitting authority for an extension of 

time to complete the repairs. The owner 

or operator must submit this request to 

the permitting authority within 45 days 

after the date the defect or deficiency is 

discovered. The amendments require 

that this request include the information 

required for the previous notice, along 

with a detailed proposed schedule for 

completing the repairs and a request for 

approval of the proposed repair 

schedule. The permitting authority may 

consider all relevant factors in deciding 

whether to approved or deny the 

60816 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

request, including feasibility and safety, 

and may request modifications to the 

proposed schedule. If the permitting 

authority approves the request, the 

approved schedule must provide for 

completion of repairs as soon as 

practicable. This new requirement 

provides flexibility for unforeseen 

circumstances but also requires 

accountability for making needed 

repairs. 

B. What Other Changes Are We Making? 

A new non-recovery coke plant now 

under construction will use flat car 

pushing along with a mobile control 

system (closed hood capture system 

vented to a multicyclone) to control PM 

emissions during pushing and travel to 

the quench tower. There are no test data 

for the proposed control system because 

no such system has been built. 

Consequently, we cannot develop an 

alternative emissions limit. However, 

the existing emission limit of 0.04 

pound per ton of coke in 40 CFR 

63.7290(a)(4), which applies to mobile 

scrubber cars that capture emissions 

during travel, covers a comparable 

situation. Therefore, we are changing 

the applicability of the limit from 

‘‘mobile scrubber car’’ to ‘‘mobile 

control device.’’ Thus, the existing limit 

will apply to any type of mobile control 

device applied to pushing emissions 

that also captures emissions during 

travel at a new or existing coke oven 

battery. 

While the existing rule contains 

monitoring provisions for scrubbers, 

baghouse, and capture systems, it does 

not include requirements applicable to 

multicyclones. Therefore, we have 

added an operating limit to the final 

rule, along with requirements for 

demonstrating initial and continuous 

compliance. Based on information in 

EPA’s 1998 ‘‘Compliance Assurance 

Monitoring Technical Guidance 

Document’’ (available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/cam), we selected 

pressure drop as the indicator of proper 

control device performance. For 

multicyclones, control efficiency is a 

function of inlet velocity, and changes 

in velocity result in changes in pressure 

drop across the device. If the inlet 

velocity exceeds a certain level, 

turbulence becomes excessive and 

control efficiency decreases. Therefore, 

the operating limit requires the owner or 

operator to maintain the pressure drop 

at or below the level established during 

the initial performance test. A 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS) is required to measure 

and record the pressure drop across the 

device. We also added rule provisions 

for establishing an operating limit; 

demonstrating initial compliance; 

installing, operating, and maintaining 

the CPMS; and demonstrating 

continuous compliance with the 

parametric operating limit. 

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Impacts 

The final rule amendments will have 

no effect on environmental, energy, or 

non-air health impacts because none of 

the changes affect the stringency of the 

existing emission limits. No costs or 

economic impacts are associated with 

the amendments. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 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. The Executive 

Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866, and is, therefore, not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

costs of the information collection 

requirements associated with the 

provisions related to the settlement 

agreement do not increase the existing 

burden estimates for the final rule. The 

OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing rule (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart CCCCC) under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has 

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0521, EPA ICR number 1995.02. A copy 

of the approved Information Collection 

Request (ICR) may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

the final rule amendments. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s final amendments on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business having no more 

than 1,000 employees, as defined by the 

Small Business Administration for 

NAICS codes 331111 and 324199; (2) a 

government jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and that is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final amendments on 

small entities, the EPA has concluded 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60817

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency 

may conclude that a rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

We believe there will be a positive 

impact on small entities because the 

final rule amendments add new 

compliance provisions to increase 

flexibility. These changes are voluntary 

and do not impose new costs. We have, 

therefore, concluded that today’s final 

rule amendments will relieve regulatory 

burden for all small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the EPA generally must prepare a 

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires the EPA 

to identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least-burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before the EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

The EPA has determined that the final 

amendments do not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector in any 1 year. No 

new costs are attributable to the final 

amendments. Thus, the final rule 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. The EPA has also 

determined that the final rule 

amendments contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because they contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them. 

Therefore, the final rule amendments 

are not subject to section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’

The final rule amendments do not 

have federalism implications. They will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

affected plants are owned or operated by 

State governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to the final 

rule amendments. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 6, 2000) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ The final rule 

amendments do not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, because tribal 

governments do not own or operate any 

sources subject to the final rule 

amendments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to the final rule 

amendments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the EPA must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

We interpret Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. The final rule amendments 

are not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because the final rule (and these 

amendments) are based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

These final amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001) because they are 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed 

amendments, Section 112(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–113; 15 U.S.C 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in their regulatory 

and procurement activities unless to do 

so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise 

impracticable. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

material specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business 

practices) developed or adopted by one 

or more voluntary consensus bodies. 

The NTTAA requires EPA to provide 

Congress, through the OMB, 

60818 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA’s compliance with section 

112(d) of the NTTAA has been 

addressed in the preamble to the 

existing rule (68 FR 18025, April 14, 

2003). The final rule amendments do 

not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA is not considering the 

use of any voluntary consensus 

standards. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 

final rule amendments will be effective 

on January 11, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 4, 2004. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Administrator.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart CCCCC—[Amended]

■ 2. Section 63.7290 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(4), (b) 

introductory text, and (b)(3) and by 

adding new paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows:

§ 63.7290 What emission limitations must I 

meet for capture systems and control 

devices applied to pushing emissions? 

(a) * * * 

(4) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile 

control device that captures emissions 

during travel is used. 

(b) You must meet each operating 

limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 

this section that applies to you for a new 

or existing coke oven battery.

* * * * *

(3) For each capture system applied to 

pushing emissions, you must maintain 

the daily average volumetric flow rate at 

the inlet of the control device at or 

above the minimum level established 

during the initial performance test; or 

(i) For each capture system that uses 

an electric motor to drive the fan, you 

must maintain the daily average fan 

motor amperes at or above the minimum 

level established during the initial 

performance test; and 

(ii) For each capture system that does 

not use a fan driven by an electric 

motor, you must maintain the daily 

average static pressure at the inlet to the 

control device at an equal or greater 

vacuum than the level established 

during the initial performance test or 

maintain the daily average fan 

revolutions per minute (RPM) at or 

above the minimum level established 

during the initial performance test. 

(4) For each multicyclone, you must 

maintain the daily average pressure 

drop at or below the minimum level 

established during the initial 

performance test.

■ 3. Section 63.7300 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. Removing the third (last) sentence in 

paragraph (c)(1) and adding in its place 

a new sentence; and

■ b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and 

(ii).

§ 63.7300 What are my operation and 

maintenance requirements?

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * In the event a defect or 

deficiency is found in the capture 

system (during a monthly inspection or 

between inspections), you must 

complete repairs within 30 days after 

the date that the defect or deficiency is 

discovered except as specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) If you determine that the repairs 

can be completed within 60 days, you 

must submit a written notice that must 

be received by the permitting authority 

within 30 days after the date that the 

defect or deficiency is discovered. Your 

notice must contain a description of the 

defect or deficiency, the steps needed 

and taken to correct the problem, the 

interim steps being taken to mitigate the 

emissions impact of the defect or 

deficiency, and an explanation of why 

the repairs cannot be completed within 

30 days. You must then complete the 

repairs within 60 days after the date that 

the defect or deficiency is discovered. 

(ii) In those rare instances when 

repairs cannot be completed within 60 

days, you must submit a written request 

for extension of time to complete the 

repairs. The request must be received by 

the permitting authority not more than 

45 days after the date that the defect or 

deficiency is discovered. The request 

must contain all of the information 

required for the written notice described 

in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section, 

along with a detailed proposed schedule 

for completing the repairs and a request 

for approval of the proposed repair 

schedule. The permitting authority may 

consider all relevant factors in deciding 

whether to approve or deny the request 

(including feasibility and safety). Each 

approved schedule must provide for 

completion of repairs as expeditiously 

as practicable, and the permitting 

authority may request modifications to 

the proposed schedule as part of the 

approval process.

* * * * *

■ 4. Section 63.7323 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. Revising paragraph (c);

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as (e);

■ c. Adding new paragraph (d); and

■ d. Revising newly designated 

paragraph (e) introductory text and 

revising newly designated paragraph 

(e)(3).

§ 63.7323 What procedures must I use to 

establish operating limits?

* * * * *

(c) For a capture system applied to 

pushing emissions from a coke oven 

battery, you must establish a sitespecific operating limit according to the 

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1), (2), or 

(3) of this section.

(1) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3) for volumetric flow rate, 

measure and record the total volumetric 

flow rate at the inlet of the control 

device during each push sampled for 

each particulate matter test run. Your 

operating limit is the lowest volumetric 

flow rate recorded during any of the 

three runs that meet the emission limit. 

(2) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for fan motor amperes, 

measure and record the fan motor 

amperes during each push sampled for 

each particulate matter test run. Your 

operating limit is the lowest fan motor 

amperes recorded during any of the 

three runs that meet the emission limit. 

(3) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for static pressure or 

fan RPM, measure and record the static 

pressure at the inlet of the control 

device or fan RPM during each push 

sampled for each particulate matter test 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60819

run. Your operating limit for static 

pressure is the minimum vacuum 

recorded during any of the three runs 

that meets the emission limit. Your 

operating limit for fan RPM is the lowest 

fan RPM recorded during any of the 

three runs that meets the emission limit. 

(d) For a multicyclone applied to 

pushing emissions from a coke oven 

battery, you must establish a sitespecific operating limit for pressure 

drop according to the procedures in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Using the CPMS required in 

§ 63.7330(f), measure and record the 

pressure drop for each particulate 

matter test run during periods of 

pushing. A minimum of one pressure 

drop measurement must be obtained for 

each push. 

(2) Compute and record the average 

pressure drop for each test run. Your 

operating limit is the highest average 

pressure drop value recorded during 

any of the three runs that meet the 

emission limit. 

(e) You may change the operating 

limit for a venturi scrubber, capture 

system, or mobile control device that 

captures emissions during pushing if 

you meet the requirements in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(3) Establish revised operating limits 

according to the applicable procedures 

in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section.

■ 5. Section 63.7326 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii);

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and 

(a)(4)(ii);

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and

■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(5).

§ 63.7326 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

that apply to me? 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) 0.04 lb/ton of coke if a mobile 

control device that captures emissions 

during travel is used.

* * * * *

(4) * * * 

(i) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3) for volumetric flow rate, 

you have a record of the total volumetric 

flow rate at the inlet of the control 

device measured during the 

performance test in accordance with 

§ 63.7323(c)(1); or 

(ii) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for fan motor amperes, 

you have a record of the fan motor 

amperes during the performance test in 

accordance with § 63.7323(c)(2); or 

(iii) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for static pressure or 

fan RPM, you have a record of the static 

pressure at the inlet of the control 

device or fan RPM measured during the 

performance test in accordance with 

§ 63.7323(c)(3). 

(5) For each multicyclone applied to 

pushing emissions, you have 

established an appropriate site-specific 

operating limit and have a record of the 

pressure drop measured during the 

performance test in accordance with 

§ 63.7323(d).

* * * * *

■ 6. Section 63.7330 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (e) and by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 63.7330 What are my monitoring 

requirements?

* * * * *

(d) For each capture system applied to 

pushing emissions, you must at all 

times monitor the volumetric flow rate 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7331(g), the fan motor amperes 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7331(h), or the static pressure or the 

fan RPM according to the requirements 

in § 63.7331(i). 

(e) For each by-product coke oven 

battery, you must monitor at all times 

the opacity of emissions exiting each 

stack using a COMS according to the 

requirements in § 63.7331(j). 

(f) For each multicyclone applied to 

pushing emissions, you must monitor at 

all times the pressure drop using a 

CPMS according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7331(k).

■ 7. Section 63.7331 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. Revising paragraphs (g) and (h);

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (i) as (j) 

and revising newly designated paragraph 

(j) introductory text;

■ c. Adding new paragraph (i); and

■ d. Adding new paragraph (k).

§ 63.7331 What are the installation, 

operation, and maintenance requirements 

for my monitors?

* * * * *

(g) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3) for a capture system 

applied to pushing emissions, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a device 

to measure the total volumetric flow rate 

at the inlet of the control device. 

(h) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for a capture system 

applied to pushing emissions, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a device 

to measure the fan motor amperes. 

(i) If you elect the operating limit in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for a capture system 

applied to pushing emissions, you must 

install, operate and maintain a device to 

measure static pressure at the inlet of 

the control device or the fan RPM. 

(j) For each by-product coke oven 

battery, you must install, operate, and 

maintain a COMS to measure and record 

the opacity of emissions exiting each 

stack according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this 

section.

* * * * *

(k) For each multicyclone applied to 

pushing emissions, you must install, 

operate, and maintain CPMS to measure 

and record the pressure drop across 

each multicyclone during each push 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section except as specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section.

■ 8. Section 63.7333 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. Revising paragraph (d);

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(2); and

■ c. Adding new paragraph (h).

§ 63.7333 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *

(d) For each capture system applied to 

pushing emissions and subject to the 

operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(3), you 

must demonstrate continuous 

compliance by meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (d)(1), (2), or 

(3) of this section: 

(1) If you elect the operating limit for 

volumetric flow rate in § 63.7290(b)(3): 

(i) Maintaining the daily average 

volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the 

control device at or above the minimum 

level established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test; and 

(ii) Checking the volumetric flow rate 

at least every 8 hours to verify the daily 

average is at or above the minimum 

level established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test and 

recording the results of each check. 

(2) If you elect the operating limit for 

fan motor amperes in § 63.7290(b)(3)(i): 

(i) Maintaining the daily average fan 

motor amperages at or above the 

minimum level established during the 

initial or subsequent performance test; 

and 

(ii) Checking the fan motor amperage 

at least every 8 hours to verify the daily 

average is at or above the minimum 

level established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test and 

recording the results of each check. 

(3) If you elect the operating limit for 

static pressure or fan RPM in 

§ 63.7290(b)(3)(ii): 

(i) Maintaining the daily average static 

pressure at the inlet to the control 

device at an equal or greater vacuum 

60820 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 13, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

than established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test or the daily 

average fan RPM at or above the 

minimum level established during the 

initial or subsequent performance test; 

and 

(ii) Checking the static pressure or fan 

RPM at least every 8 hours to verify the 

daily average static pressure at the inlet 

to the control device is at an equal or 

greater vacuum than established during 

the initial or subsequent performance 

test or the daily average fan RPM is at 

or above the minimum level established 

during the initial or subsequent 

performance test and recording the 

results of each check. 

(e) * * * 

(2) Operating and maintaining a 

COMS and collecting and reducing the 

COMS data according to § 63.7331(j).

* * * * *

(h) For each multicyclone applied to 

pushing emissions and subject to the 

operating limit in § 63.7290(b)(4), you 

must demonstrate compliance by 

meeting the requirements in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Maintaining the daily average 

pressure drop at a level at or below the 

level established during the initial or 

subsequent performance test. 

(2) Operating and maintaining each 

CPMS according to § 63.7331(k) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements. 

(3) Collecting and reducing 

monitoring data for pressure drop 

according to § 63.7331(e)(1) through (3).

[FR Doc. 04–22871 Filed 10–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–2004–0299; FRL–7681–8]

Mepanipyrim; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for combined residues of 

mepanipyrim, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(1-

propynyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, and its 

metabolite, 4-methyl-N-phenyl-6-(2-

hydroxypropyl)-2-pyrimidinamine, both 

free and conjugated in or on grape; 

grape, raisin; strawberry; and tomato. KI Chemical U.S.A., Inc., requested these 

tolerances under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as 

amended by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective 

October 13, 2004. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before December 13, 2004.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2004–

0299. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:/

/www.epa.gov/edocket/. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 South Bell 

St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary L. Waller, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308–9354; e-mail address: 

waller.mary@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 111), e.g., 

agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers.

• Animal production (NAICS 112), 

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy 

cattle farmers, livestock farmers.

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), 

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators.

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users.

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. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document and Other Related 

Information?

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:/

/www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may 

access this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http://

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the 

OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines 

referenced in this document, go directly 

to the guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/

opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of May 26, 

2004 (69 FR 29940) (FRL–7357–4), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 8E5017) by K-I 

Chemical U.S.A., Inc., 11 Martine Ave., 

9th Floor, White Plains, NY 10606. That 

notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by K-I Chemical 

U.S.A., the petitioner. One comment 

from a private citizen was received in 

response to the notice of filing. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 

be amended by establishing tolerances 

for combined residues of the fungicide 

mepanipyrim in or on grape at 2.0 parts 

per million (ppm); grape, raisin at 4.0 

ppm; strawberry at 1.5 ppm; and tomato 

at 0.5 ppm.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA 

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the 

legal limit for a pesticide chemical 

residue in or on a food) only if EPA 

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA 

defines ‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable certainty that no harm will 

result from aggregate exposure to the 

pesticide chemical residue, including 

all anticipated dietary exposures and all 

other exposures for which there is 

reliable information.’’ This includes 

exposure through drinking water and in 

residential settings, but does not include 

occupational exposure. Section