36722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

test methods, new source performance

standards, and national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants.

Also, the Governor requested that all

existing State regulations approved in

the SIP be replaced with the October 1,

1979 codification of the ARM as in

effect on March 30, 1994. EPA is

replacing all of the previously approved

State regulations, except ARM 16.8.1302

and 16.8.1307, with those regulations

listed in paragraph (c)(39)(i)(A) of this

section. ARM 16.8.1302 and 16.8.1307,

as in effect on April 16, 1982 and as

approved by EPA at 40 CFR

52.1370(c)(11), will remain part of the

SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Administrative Rules of Montana

(ARM) Sections 16.8.201–202, 16.8.301–

304, and 16.8.401–404, effective 12/31/

72; Section 16.8.701, effective 12/10/93;

Section 16.8.704, effective 2/14/87;

Section 16.8.705, effective 6/18/82;

Section 16.8.707, effective 9/13/85;

Sections 16.8.708–709, effective 12/10/

93; Sections 16.8.945–963, effective 12/

10/93; Sections 16.8.1001–1003,

effective 9/13/85; Section 16.8.1004,

effective 12/25/92; Sections 16.8.1005–

1006, effective 9/13/85; Section

16.8.1007, effective 4/29/88; Section

16.8.1008, effective 9/13/85; Section

16.8.1101, effective 6/16/89; Section

16.8.1102, effective 2/14/87; Section

16.8.1103, effective 6/16/89; Section

16.8.1104, effective 3/16/79; Section

16.8.1105, effective 12/27/91; Sections

16.8.1107 and 16.8.1109, effective 12/

10/93; Sections 16.8.1110–1112.

effective 3/16/79; Section 16.8.1113,

effective 2/14/87; Section 16.8.1114,

effective 12/10/93; Sections 16.8.1115,

16.8.1117, and 16.8.1118, effective 3/16/

79; Sections 16.8.1119–1120, effective

12/10/93; Sections 16.8.1204–1206,

effective 6/13/86; Sections 16.8.1301

and 16.8.1303, effective 4/16/82;

Section 16.8.1304, effective 9/11/92;

Section 16.8.1305, effective 4/16/82;

Section 16.8.1306, effective 4/1/82;

Section 16.8.1308, effective 10/16/92;

Section 16.8.1401, effective 10/29/93;

Section 16.8.1402, effective 3/11/88;

Section 16.8.1403, effective 9/5/75;

Section 16.8.1404, effective 6/13/86;

Section 16.8.1406, effective 12/29/78;

Section 16.8.1407, effective 10/29/93;

Section 16.8.1411, effective 12/31/72;

Section 16.8.1412, effective 3/13/81;

Section 16.8.1413, effective 12/31/72;

Section 16.8.1419, effective 12/31/72;

Sections 16.8.1423, 16.8.1424, and

16.8.1425 (except 16.8.1425(1)(c) and

(2)(d)), effective 10/29/93; Section

16.8.1426, effective 12/31/72; Sections

16.8.1428–1430, effective 10/29/93;

Section 16.8.1501, effective 2/10/89;

Section 16.8.1502, effective 2/26/82;

Section 16.8.1503, effective 2/10/89;

Sections 16.8.1504–1505, effective 2/26/

82; Sections 16.8.1701–1705, effective

12/10/93; and Sections 16.8.1801–1806,

effective 12/10/93.

3. Section 52.1384 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (a)

and adding a new paragraph (c) to read

as follows:

§ 52.1384 Emission control regulations.

* * * * *

(c) The provisions in ARM

16.8.1425(1)(c) and (2)(d) of the State’s

rule regulating hydrocarbon emissions

from petroleum products, which were

submitted by the Governor of Montana

on May 17, 1994 and which allow

discretion by the State to allow different

equipment than that required by this

rule, are disapproved. Such discretion

cannot be allowed without requiring

EPA review and approval of the

alternative equipment to ensure that it

is equivalent in efficiency to that

equipment required in the approved

SIP.

§ 52.1386 [Removed and reserved]

4. Section 52.1386 is removed and

reserved.

[FR Doc. 95–17212 Filed 7–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT24–1–7036a; FRL–5260–9]

Withdrawal of the Determination of

Attainment of Ozone Standard for the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties Ozone

Nonattainment Area; Utah; and the

Determination Regarding Applicability

of Certain Reasonable Further

Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On June 8, 1995, EPA

published a direct final rule (60 FR

30189) determining the applicability of

certain reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements, of Part D of Title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties ozone

nonattainment area. This action was

published without prior proposal.

Because EPA has received adverse

comments on this action, EPA is

withdrawing the June 8, 1995, direct

final rulemaking action pertaining to the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Russ, Air Programs Branch (8ART–AP),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466

Phone: (303) 293–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8,

1995, EPA published a direct final rule

determining that certain reasonable

further progress and attainment

demonstration requirements, along with

certain other related requirements, of

Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended 1990, for the Salt

Lake and Davis Counties, Utah, ozone

nonattainment area were no longer

applicable. This determination was

based on the area having attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone based on three years

of ambient air quality monitoring data

(60 FR 30189). The direct final rule was

published, without prior proposal, in

the Federal Register with a provision

for a 30 day comment period. In

addition, EPA published a proposed

rule, also on June 8, 1995, which

announced that this direct final rule

would convert to a proposed rule in the

event that adverse comments were

submitted to EPA within 30 days of the

date of publication of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register (60 FR

30217). EPA received adverse comments

within the prescribed comment period.

With this notice, EPA is withdrawing

the June 8, 1995, direct final rulemaking

action (60 FR 30189) pertaining to the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties’ ozone

nonattainment area. All public

comments that were received will be

addressed in a final rulemaking action

based on the proposed rule (60 FR

30217).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

Dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: July 13, 1995.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–17756 Filed 7–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 36723

40 CFR Part 52

[UT24–1–7128; FRL–5261–1]

Determination of Attainment of Ozone

Standard for Salt Lake and Davis

Counties, Utah, and Determination

Regarding Applicability of Certain

Reasonable Further Progress and

Attainment Demonstration

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On June 8, 1995, the EPA

published a direct final and proposed

rulemakings determining that the Salt

Lake and Davis Counties, Utah,

moderate ozone nonattainment area had

attained the ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Based

on this determination, the EPA also

determined that certain reasonable

further progress and attainment

demonstration requirements, along with

certain other related requirements, of

part D of Title 1 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended in 1990, are not

applicable to the area so long as the area

continues to attain the ozone NAAQS.

The 30-day comment period concluded

on July 10, 1995. During this comment

period, the EPA received two comment

letters in response to the June 8, 1995,

rulemaking. This final rule summarizes

all comments and EPA’s responses, and

finalizes the EPA’s determination that

the area has attained the ozone standard

and that certain reasonable further

progress and attainment demonstration

requirements as well as other related

requirements of part D of the CAA are

not applicable to these areas as long as

the area continues to attain the ozone

NAAQS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

July 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

inspection at the following address:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, Air Programs Branch,

999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Russ, Air Programs Branch (8ART–AP),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466,

Telephone Number (303) 293–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

On June 8, 1995, the EPA published

a direct final rulemaking (60 FR 30189)

determining that the Salt Lake and

Davis Counties moderate ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

NAAQS for ozone. In that rulemaking,

the EPA determined that, as a

consequence of that determination, the

requirements of section 182(b)(1)

concerning the submission of a 15

percent reasonable further progress plan

and ozone attainment demonstration

and the requirements of section

172(c)(9) concerning contingency

measures are not applicable to the area

so long as the area does not violate the

ozone standard. In addition, the EPA

determined that the sanctions clock

started on January 19, 1994, for this area

for failure to submit the section

182(b)(1) reasonable further progress

requirements and section 172(c)(9)

contingency measures would be stopped

since the deficiencies on which it was

based no longer exist.

At the same time that the EPA

published the direct final rule, a

separate notice of proposed rulemaking

was published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 30217). This proposed

rulemaking specified that EPA would

withdraw the direct final rule if adverse

or critical comments were filed on the

rulemaking. The EPA received two

letters containing adverse comments

regarding the direct final rule, within 30

days of publication of the proposed rule,

and is withdrawing the direct final rule

in a separate notice published in this

Federal Register.

The specific rationale and air quality

analysis the EPA used to determine that

the Salt Lake and Davis Counties ozone

nonattainment area had attained the

ozone NAAQS and is not required to

submit State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions for reasonable further

progress, attainment demonstration and

related requirements are explained in

the direct final rule and will not be

restated here.

This final rule contained in this

Federal Register addresses the

comments which were received during

the public comment period and

announces EPA’s final action regarding

these determinations.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

Two letters were received in response

to the June 8, 1995, proposal and direct

final Federal Register notices. One was

a joint comment from the Utah Chapter

of the Sierra Club and the Wasatch

Clean Air Coalition (Wasatch Coalition)

and the other was from the Citizens

Commission for Clean Air in the Lake

Michigan Basin (Citizens Commission).

The following discussion summarizes

and responds to the comments received.

Comment 1.: According to the Sierra

Club and Wasatch Coalition, the

procedure used by EPA unlawfully

circumvents the formal redesignation

process required by section 107(d) of the

CAA. The commentors stated that Utah

has not met the technical and legal

requirements for redesignation of the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties

nonattainment area to attainment for

ozone and that, as a result, EPA’s

finding that certain CAA requirements

do not apply is illegal and

inappropriate. According to the

commentors, EPA may not redesignate

an area to attainment unless the criteria

of section 107(d)(3) of the CAA have

been satisfied and EPA may not allow

nonattainment areas to avoid

requirements by meeting only one of the

five criteria of section 107(d)(3) (the

requirement that a nonattainment area

has attained the standard). The

commentors assert that Part D expressly

defines attainment or nonattainment

exclusively by reference to the section

107(d) redesignation process and that

the statutory provisions of Part D at

issue are tied expressly to the formal

designation process of section 107(d).

The commentors conclude that the

ozone nonattainment plan provisions of

Part D apply expressly to areas

classified under section 181, which

include all areas designated

nonattainment under section 107(d),

and that all of the requirements of

section 182(b) apply to all areas

designated nonattainment and classified

as moderate under section 181. The

commentors also contend that an area

may be excused from sanctions only on

the basis of redesignation to attainment

under section 107(d).

Response to Comment 1: In response,

EPA first notes that with this action,

EPA is neither redesignating the Salt

Lake and Davis Counties nonattainment

area, nor avoiding the redesignation

requirements of section 107(d). All of

those requirements remain in effect and

must be satisfied for EPA to approve the

pending redesignation request for the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties area. What

EPA is doing is making a determination

that since the area is attaining the

standard, which is a factual

determination, certain provisions of the

CAA, whose express purpose is to

achieve attainment of the standard, do

not require SIP revisions to be made by

the State for so long as the area

continues to attain the standard. In sum,

this action is not and does not purport

to be a redesignation to attainment

pursusant to section 107(d).

Consequently, the criteria of section

107(d)(3) do not apply to this action.

EPA disagrees with the commentors’

analysis of the language and structure of

the CAA. EPA’s statutory analysis was
36724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

explained in detail in the June 8, 1995,

direct final rule and in the May 10,

1995, memorandum from John Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, referred to in the June 8,

1995, Federal Register notice. EPA will

not recount that analysis here, but will

respond to the arguments presented by

the commentors regarding the statutory

language and structure of Part D of Title

I of the CAA as it relates to EPA’s action.

In sum, EPA’s legal rationale is based

upon the statutory definition of

‘‘reasonable further progress’’ in section

171(1), the concept that additional

reductions are not needed to attain the

standard in an area already attaining the

standard, and the language of section

172(c)(9) requiring contingency

measures ‘‘if the area fails to make

reasonable further progress, or to attain

the national primary ambient air quality

standard by the attainment date

applicable under this part.’’ As the

commentors acknowledge, section

171(1) defines ‘‘reasonable further

progress’’ as ‘‘such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant

air pollutant as are required by this part

or may reasonably be required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

national ambient air quality standard by

the applicable date.’’

The commentors, however, assert that

EPA is ignoring the definition of

‘‘nonattainment area’’ in section 171(2).

The commentors then proceed to argue

that as Part D ozone requirements are

linked with the classification under

section 181 of areas designated

nonattainment for ozone under section

107(d), EPA cannot excuse ozone

nonattainment areas from full

compliance with section 182 unless all

requirements of section 107(d)(3) are

met.

In response, EPA first notes that the

commentors appear to equate the

designation of an area as attainment or

nonattainment with the factual issue of

whether an area, regardless of its

designation, is attaining the standard.

These are two distinct issues, however.

Title I of the CAA, including Part D,

contains provisions that distinguish

between the concept of whether an area

is attaining a standard and an area’s

designation as attainment or

nonattainment.

Indeed, section 107(d)(3) itself clearly

demonstrates the distinction as only one

of the five criteria for redesignation of

a nonattainment area to attainment is

the determination that the area ‘‘has

attained the national ambient air quality

standard.’’ (Section 107(d)(3)((E)(i).)

Plainly, the CAA clearly contemplates

that there will be areas designated

nonattainment that are attaining the

standard as there could be a

nonattainment area that meets the air

quality criterion for redesignation to

attainment without satisfying the other

criteria. Such an area would need to

remain designated nonattainment even

though it was attaining the standard.

A provision of Part D that

demonstrates the distinction between

attaining the standard and the

designation of an area as attainment or

nonattainment is section 182(f), which

authorizes EPA to waive NOx reduction

requirements that apply to ozone

nonattainment areas by virtue of their

designation and classification if EPA

determines that the NOx reductions

would ‘‘not contribute to attainment of

the’’ standard. EPA has interpreted and

applied this provision on numerous

occasions to waive NOx emission

reduction requirements for areas that

have attained the standard since such

reductions in areas that have already

attained the standard would not

contribute to attainment. See, e.g., 60 FR

3760 (January 19, 1995) (final action on

NOx waivers for Toledo and Dayton,

Ohio). Thus, that provision clearly

contemplates that areas designated

nonattainment that have attained the

standard may have certain specified

requirements waived.

In sum, the CAA clearly does not

equate the factual issue of whether an

area is attaining the standard with the

area’s designation status as attainment

or nonattainment. It expressly

contemplates situations in which areas

designated nonattainment may be

attaining the standard. Thus, the

definition of ‘‘nonattainment area’’ in

section 171(2), which provides that, for

purposes of Part D, a nonattainment area

means an area that ‘‘is designated

‘nonattainment’ with respect to [a

particular] pollutant within the meaning

of section 107(d)’’ does not detract from

EPA’s interpretation of the language of

section 171(1) defining ‘‘reasonable

further progress’’ requirements in terms

of reductions for the purpose of

‘‘ensuring attainment.’’

EPA agrees with the commentors’

basic conception of the Part D ozone

nonattainment area requirements, which

is that the classification of an area

designated nonattainment for ozone

determines the set of requirements of

subpart 2 to which the area is subject.

For example, areas such as the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties area that are

classified as moderate pursuant to

section 181 are subject to the

requirements of section 182(b), while

areas that are classified as serious are

subject to the requirements of section

182(c).

The question at issue in this

rulemaking concerns the substance of

some of those requirements. As a

general matter, section 182(b)(1) and

section 172(c)(9) apply to moderate

ozone nonattainment areas. However, in

this rulemaking EPA is interpreting

section 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) such that

they do not impose SIP submission

requirements on an area classified as a

moderate ozone nonattainment area that

is attaining the ozone standard for so

long as the area continues to attain the

standard. This is not a waiver of

requirements that by their terms clearly

apply; it is a determination that certain

requirements are written so as to be

operative only if the area is not attaining

the standard. If, prior to the

redesignation of such an area to

attainment, the area violates the ozone

NAAQS, that determination will no

longer apply. That area, by virtue of its

continuing designation and

classification as a moderate ozone

nonattainment area, will once again be

faced with an obligation to submit SIP

revisions pursuant to sections 172(c)(9)

and 182(b)(1).

Moreover, other requirements of part

D that are not written in such a way as

to require submissions only if an area is

not attaining the standard continue to

apply solely by virtue of the area’s

classification and designation as a

moderate ozone nonattainment area. For

example, the Volatile Organic

Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT)

requirements of section 182(a)(2) and

182(b)(2) apply regardless of whether an

area is attaining the standard. Similarly,

the requirements of part D new source

review (e.g., sections 182(a)(2)(C) and

(b)(5)) continue to apply to areas

designated nonattainment solely by

virtue of their continuing nonattainment

designation.

In sum, EPA disagrees with the

commentors’ view that this rulemaking

is a de facto redesignation to attainment

without complying with all of the

redesignation requirements of section

107(d)(3)(E). The Salt Lake and Davis

Counties area remains a moderate ozone

nonattainment area and remains subject

to the requirements of the CAA

applicable to such areas pursuant to

sections 172(c) and 182(b). These

include requirements such as VOC

RACT and part D new source review,

whose applicability is linked solely to

the area’s status as a designated ozone

nonattainment area that has been

classified as moderate. What EPA is

determining is that the SIP submission

requirements of section 182(b)(1)

regarding 15% reasonable further

progress and attainment demonstration
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 36725

plans and of section 172(c)(9) regarding

contingency measures to be

implemented in the event an area fails

to make reasonable further progress or

attain the standard by the attainment

date can and should be interpreted not

to apply for so long as the area

continues to attain the standard.

Whether the Salt Lake and Davis

Counties nonattainment area may be

redesignated to attainment pursuant to

section 107(d)(3)(E) is a matter still

pending before EPA and is not the

subject of this rulemaking action.

EPA also disagrees with the

commentors’ contentions regarding

sanctions. The basis for the initiation of

a sanctions clock in this instance was a

finding that plan revisions required by

the CAA were not submitted (see

section 179(a)). If EPA determines that

the requirement that led to that finding

no longer applies, then the basis for the

initiation of the sanctions clock no

longer exists and mandatory sanctions

under section 179 should not apply 18

months after the finding as they would

if the deficiency (the failure to make a

required SIP submission) that led to the

finding still existed.

Comment 2: The Sierra Club and

Wasatch Coalition commented that

EPA’s procedure violates an important

policy goal of the CAA—the assurance

that standards will be maintained in the

future. According to the commentors the

four criteria, other than having attained

the standard, that must be satisfied for

an area to be redesignated to attainment

are intended to assure continued

attainment of the standard. The

commentors stated that if EPA exempts

Salt Lake and Davis Counties from the

RFP and contingency plan requirements

there may be little incentive for the

State to proceed with redesignation of

the area and the additional requirements

would not be met. In addition, the

commentors contend that the State is

having difficulty demonstrating that the

NAAQS will be maintained over the

next 15 years due to anticipated growth

and that some current emission

reductions are not due to permanent

and enforceable requirements.

According to the commentors, EPA’s

proposed action regarding the section

182(b)(1) and section 172(c)(9)

requirements and sanctions would

circumvent the preventive approach of

the CAA. The commentors assert that

the nonconservative approach of having

the excused requirements being

retriggered in the event of a violation is

inappropriate and inconsistent with

congressional intent since it does not

assure that adequate controls are in

place to prevent violations; it relies on

correcting inadequate programs only

after harm occurs, which will result in

residents being required to breathe

unhealthy air that should have been

prevented.

Response to Comment 2: As discussed

above, this proceeding is not a

redesignation and EPA is not required to

apply the criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E)

in determining whether the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties nonattainment area

has attained the standard for purposes

of determining whether the area is

presently required to submit SIP

revisions pursuant to sections 182(b)(1)

and 172(c)(9). That does not mean that

EPA is not concerned with the area’s

ability to continue to maintain the

NAAQS in the future.

First, as discussed above, EPA’s

action applies only to certain

requirements. It does not relax any

existing SIP control measures, e.g., VOC

RACT requirements. Those

requirements will continue to apply, as

well as federal requirements such as the

federal motor vehicle control program,

which will produce additional emission

reductions in the future due to fleet

turnover, and Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) requirements. These measures

have produced permanent and

enforceable emission reductions in the

period leading to the area’s attainment

of the standard and will continue to

produce such emission reductions.

Second, EPA’s action is contingent

upon the area continuing to attain the

NAAQS. Unless the area is

redesignated, it will remain an ozone

nonattainment area, subject to the risk

that if a violation occurs it will have to

adopt and implement a 15% VOC

emission reduction plan and a plan that

demonstrates attainment pursuant to

section 182(b)(1), as well as the section

172(c)(9) contingency measures. Thus, if

it turns out that the existing SIP control

measures and other requirements are

not adequate to prevent a violation,

additional control measures will be

required.

EPA acknowledges the concern of the

commentors that EPA’s approach may

mean that those control measures would

not be adopted and implemented as

quickly as they would be if EPA

continued to require the section

182(b)(1) and 172(c)(9) SIP submissions

at this time. EPA believes, however, that

a countervailing policy objective is to

reduce the burden on states and sources

of adopting and implementing

additional control measures that are not

necessary to attain the standard. The

Salt Lake and Davis Counties

nonattainment area has been in

attainment of the standard since the

1991–93 period and continues to be in

attainment. Indeed, no exceedances of

the standard have been monitored since

1991 and only one exceedance was

monitored in 1991. (For a violation to

occur, the expected exceedances must

amount to four over a three-year period

at the same monitoring location.) In

such a case, where an area has attained

the standard, EPA believes it

appropriate and justifiable to adopt an

approach that alleviates the burdens of

adopting and implementing additional

control measures that do not appear

necessary to achieve the objective of

attaining the standard.

As noted previously, the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties nonattainment area

will be at risk of having to adopt a 15%

reasonable further progress plan,

attainment demonstration, and section

172(c)(9) contingency measures unless it

is redesignated to attainment. In order to

be redesignated to attainment, however,

the area will have to satisfy all of the

criteria of section 107(d)(3)(E),

including the requirement that EPA

fully approve a maintenance plan

satisfying the requirements of section

175A, which requires a plan to maintain

the standard for a period of 10 years

after an area is redesignated. As the

sufficiency of the State’s maintenance

plan is an issue for the proceeding that

evaluates the merits of the State’s

pending redesignation request, and not

this rulemaking, the comments

regarding the adequacy of that plan will

be considered in the redesignation

proceeding.

EPA believes that, contrary to the

suggestion of the commentors, that the

State will have adequate incentives to

continue to seek the redesignation of the

Salt Lake and Davis Counties area to

attainment. Those incentives include

being able to eliminate the risk of being

subject to the 15% plan requirement,

rather than have to address a

requirement to achieve 15% VOC

emission reductions in the event of a

violation. Furthermore, if the area

violates the standard prior to

redesignation, it will be subject to the

‘‘bump-up’’ provisions of section

181(b)(2), which require the area to be

‘‘bumped up’’ to the next higher

classification (serious) and subject to

additional requirements above and

beyond the requirements applicable to

moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

This provides an additional substantial

incentive for the State to satisfy the

requirements for redesignation to

attainment. In addition, unless an area

is redesignated, part D new source

review, rather than part C prevention of

significant deterioration requirements,

must continue to apply.

Comment 3: The Sierra Club and

Wasatch Coalition disagree that the
36726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

relevant data demonstrate that the

Counties have attained the NAAQS for

ozone. The commentors argue that the

State should have to conclusively

demonstrate that the NAAQS for ozone

is being met, and, in their view, the

State has not done so. The commentors

note that EPA has expressed concern

over the number and placement of

monitoring stations and that studies of

the monitoring network conducted in

the summers of 1993 and 1994

concluded that additional monitoring

stations should be established and that

existing stations were not well placed to

measure maximum ozone

concentrations. The commentors argue

that only one year of preliminary data

are available from new stations

established as a result of these studies

and that attainment cannot be

demonstrated based on only one year of

data from the new sites. The

commentors also cite the complexity of

meteorological patterns in the affected

area, which may result in variable ozone

levels at different locations at different

times. Because of this meteorological

complexity, the commentors argue that

it is inappropriate to extrapolate a

finding of areawide compliance from a

few monitoring sites. According to the

commentors, these problems may lead

to a false conclusion of attainment

throughout the nonattainment area. In

the commentors’ view, this concern is

far more serious because data from

monitoring locations is so close to the

applicable standard and very small

increases at different locations would

indicate nonattainment with the

standard. The commentors feel it is

premature to conclude that the standard

has been met.

The Citizens Commission expresses

similar concerns regarding the air

quality monitoring data upon which

EPA based its proposal.

Response to Comment 3: EPA has

approved the monitoring network for

the Salt Lake and Davis Counties

nonattainment area as meeting the

requirements of its regulations. EPA has

not taken any action to disapprove the

network but, as described in detail

below, has been working with the State

of Utah to improve the quality of the

network. Although EPA and the State

are undertaking studies that may result

in improvements to the network, that

does not mean that EPA views the

monitoring data showing attainment of

the standard as being inadequate or

unreliable. EPA continually reviews the

monitoring networks to determine how

they can be improved. However, the fact

that a monitoring network may be able

to be improved does not mean that the

existing network does not meet EPA’s

regulations, nor does it mean that the

data collected from the existing network

should be ignored or discounted. EPA

believes that the monitoring data fully

support a determination that the Salt

Lake and Davis Counties area has

attained the standard. That network

remains a fully approved network and

EPA does not believe that there is a

basis for discounting the data showing

attainment of the standard since 1990.

EPA further notes that no exceedances

have been monitored in the area since

1991, and only one was monitored in

1991. (Contrary to the assertion of the

commentors, EPA’s methodology of

rounding down a monitored reading of

up to .124 to .12 is not inconsistent with

40 CFR Part 50, App. H. That is EPA’s

long-standing approach to determining

whether exceedances occur and is fully

justified and appropriate.) Also, not

only did the existing network fail to

record an exceedance in 1994, but none

of the additional monitors established as

part of the ongoing studies discussed

below monitored an exceedance. While

those monitors have yet to be in

operation a full three years, those initial

results support the finding that the area

has attained the standard. As a violation

does not occur unless four exceedances

occur at a single monitor over a threeyear period, the data from the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties area amply support

the determination that the area has

attained the standard.

What follows is a more detailed

explanation of EPA’s reviews of the

ozone monitoring network and the

ongoing studies being conducted to

evaluate it. The Utah Division of Air

Quality conducted network reviews and

submitted packages of information

describing reviews of the State’s air

monitoring network (including ozone

monitoring stations) covering the period

of 1991 through 1994. EPA has reviewed

the submittals.

In a letter from Marshall Payne to

Burnell Cordner dated September 1,

1992 regarding the State’s network

review submittal of May 1 and May 15,

1992, EPA concluded the network

review met the requirements of 40 CFR,

Part 58.20(d). In a letter from Marshall

Payne to Russell Roberts dated January

13, 1994 regarding the State’s network

review submittal of June 2, 1993, EPA

commented on the results of the 1993

saturation study and requested that the

State submit a plan to revise the ozone

monitoring network. The State’s

response to that request was dated

March 4, 1994; EPA replied in a letter

from Marshall Payne and Douglas Skie

dated April 13, 1994. In the April 13,

1994 letter, EPA urged the State to

proceed with proposed additions to the

ozone network for the 1994 ozone

season. The State added several ozone

stations, which collected data in the

1994 ozone season.

A letter from Douglas Skie to Russell

Roberts dated May 5, 1995 regarding the

State’s network review submittal of

September 30, 1994, stated that, in

general, EPA supported the

modifications to the ozone network

resulting from the 1993 and 1994

saturation studies. In the same letter,

EPA urged the State to designate

National Air Monitoring Stations both

in Ogden and the Provo-Orem area. In

the May 5, 1995 letter, EPA also

acknowledged the State’s request to

discontinue the Springville ozone

station due to low observed

concentrations; EPA concurred that this

station, having been established based

upon the saturation study of 1993, had

fulfilled its purpose and was no longer

needed. The Salt Lake City station (610

South Second East) was discontinued

late in 1994 due to permanent structural

changes on the roof of the Health

Department building.

The State submitted a report,

‘‘Wasatch Front Ozone Saturation

Study, Summer, 1994’’ under a letter

dated April 3, 1995. The report cited

limitations of the passive sampling

devices used in the study; those

limitations impede the ability to

confidently select sites for maximum

concentration stations on the basis of

saturation studies alone. Because of

differences in meteorological conditions

between 1993 and 1994, EPA contends

the results of the 1994 study suggest it

is important to operate a network of

ozone monitoring stations with diverse

exposures in the Wasatch Front.

Maximum ozone concentrations were

measured relatively close to the urban

core of Salt Lake City, while some high

concentrations may still occur in the

periphery. The report suggested the

possibility of establishing an ozone

monitoring station on the east bench of

Salt Lake City (viz., in the vicinity of

Sandy and Draper, Utah). EPA has

supported the plan to install such a

station and has urged the State to

proceed.

Concentrations of air pollutants,

particularly ozone, are dynamic and air

monitoring networks should continually

be reviewed and transformed to ensure

pollutant concentrations are accurately

reflected in the national data base. EPA

has, through the network review

process, examined submittals bearing

upon the design of the ozone network in

the Wasatch Front, made comments on

changes recommended in the network

design, and concurred on the design of

the ozone network during the period of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 36727

1991 to 1994. Results of the saturation

studies of 1993 and 1994 were also

reviewed by EPA. EPA expressed

concerns regarding the network design

during the period 1991 to 1994 and

requested that the State make

modifications; however, the proposed

changes evolved as part of the normal

process of network design review. The

State took action to address the

concerns and modified the network. The

ozone standard has not been violated in

the Wasatch Front during the period

from 1991 to 1994; there have been no

exceedances since 1991. It is EPA’s

position that the State of Utah modified,

sited, and operated the ozone

monitoring network consistent with 40

CFR Part 58 during those years and that

the resulting data can reasonably be

relied upon to characterize the ozone

attainment status of Salt Lake and Davis

Counties.

Comment 4: The Citizens Commission

stated that the rulemaking is an abuse of

agency discretion and violates sections

172(c)(9), 179(a) and 182(b)(1) of the

Act. According to the commentor, EPA

may suspend the applicablility of SIP

requirements only through a

redesignation to attainment pursuant to

section 107(d)(3)(E).

Response to Comment 4: For the

reasons stated above, in the June 8,

1995, Federal Register notice, and in

the May 10, 1995, memorandum from

John Seitz, the EPA does not believe

that the rulemaking violates any section

of the CAA. The commentor has not

offered any persuasive reasoning for

EPA to depart from the rationale spelled

out in the previous documents. The EPA

believes that since the area has attained

the ozone standard, it has achieved the

stated purpose of the section 182(b)(1)

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements,

as well as the section 172(c)(9)

contingency measures requirement. As

described above, this action is not a

redesignation, nor does it circumvent

the requirements for a redesignation

under section 107(d)(3)(E).

Comment 5: The Citizens Commission

stated that EPA’s action is not a

reasonable interpretation of EPA’s

nondiscretionary mandate under section

101(b)(1) to ‘‘protect and enhance the

quality of the Nation’s air resources so

as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of

its population.’’

Response to Comment 5: The EPA

disagrees with the commentor’s

statement that its action violates section

101(b)(1). Section 101(b)(1) does not

establish a nondiscretionary duty; it is

a statement of purpose—a purpose that

EPA is not disregarding in this action.

The area has attained the primary ozone

standard, a standard designed to protect

public health with an adequate margin

of safety (see section 109(b)(1)). EPA’s

action does not relax any of the

requirements that have led to the

attainment of the standard. Rather, its

action has the effect of suspending

requirements, for additional pollution

reductions, above and beyond those that

have resulted in the attainment of the

health-based standard.

Comment 6: The Citizens Commission

asserts that EPA’s action violates the

Administrative Procedure Act and the

CAA through its reliance on

unpublished memoranda and the

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR

13498 (April 16, 1992). According to the

commentor, reliance on those

documents is inappropriate and illegal

since those documents were issued

without opportunity for notice and

comment and are not enforceable

regulations. The commentor also states

that EPA’s action is barren of any

statement of legal authority.

Response to Comment 6: EPA’s

reference to and reliance on those

documents, all of which are either

published or publicly available and a

part of the record of this rulemaking, is

in no way illegal under provisions of

either the CAA or the Administrative

Procedures Act. (The commentor cited

no specific provisions of either act.)

EPA agrees that such documents do not

establish enforceable regulations; they

do not purport to be anything but

guidance. That is precisely why EPA

has performed this rulemaking—a

notice-and-comment rulemaking to take

comment on its statutory interpretations

and factual determinations in order to

make a binding and enforceable

determination regarding the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties area. The June 8,

1995, Federal Register notices referred

to EPA’s prior policy memoranda not as

binding the Agency to adopt the

interpretations being proposed therein,

but rather as a useful description of the

rationale underlying those proposed

interpretations. EPA has explained the

legal and factual basis for its rulemaking

in the June 8, 1995, Federal Register

notices and afforded the public a full

opportunity to comment on EPA’s

proposed interpretation and

determination fully consistent with the

applicable procedural requirements of

the Administrative Procedures Act. (The

procedural requirements of section

307(d) of the CAA do not apply to this

rulemaking since it is not among the

rulemakings listed in section 307(d)(1).)

Comment 7: The Citizens Commission

states that the suspension of the

contingency measure requirement is

particularly inappropriate given the

dubious adequacy of the monitoring

network. According to the commentor,

EPA’s action threatens to subject

citizens to acute ozone episodes to

which neither the State nor EPA are

likely to be able to respond effectively

due to the lack of implemented

measures that would otherwise have

been required.

Response to Comment 7: The

response to Comment 3 above contains

EPA’s discussion of the adequacy of the

monitoring network in the Salt Lake and

Davis Counties area. As noted in the

response to Comment 2 above, EPA

acknowledges the concerns of the

commentors regarding the likelihood

that additional control measures may

not be adopted and implemented as

quickly as if EPA continued to require

their adoption and submission at this

time, but believes that countervailing

policy considerations exist. Moreover,

EPA notes that additional emission

reductions will continue to occur as

existing control measures are not being

relaxed and the federal motor vehicle

control program will continue to

produce additional reductions through

fleet turnover. As the language quoted

by the commentor from EPA’s June 8,

1995, Federal Register notice indicates,

EPA would take individual

circumstances into account, which

would include the severity of any

problems, in establishing the period in

which the State would have to address

the SIP requirements. EPA believes that

it and the State would be able to

respond effectively and promptly in the

event a violation occurs.

Comment 8: The Citizens Commission

states that the Salt Lake and Davis

Counties nonattainment area cannot be

temporarily redesignated in this

manner, especially solely on the basis of

marginal air quality data indicating

momentary achievement of the

standard.

Response to Comment 8: As explained

elsewhere in this notice, EPA’s action is

not a redesignation and is both

appropriate and legally justified.

Moreover, as explained above, the air

quality data underlying the

determination is sufficient. Finally, the

data are not marginal and do not

indicate ‘‘momentary achievement’’ of

the standard. No exceedances have been

monitored over the most recent full 3-

year period and only one exceedance

was monitored in 1991. Thus, the area

has had clean data for an extended

period of time during which emission

reductions have occurred due to the
36728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

imposition of various control measures

such as the federal motor vehicle

control program, VOC RACT

requirements, and RVP requirements.

Final Rulemaking Action

The EPA is making a final

determination that the Salt Lake and

Davis Counties ozone nonattainment

area has attained the ozone standard

and continues to attain the standard at

this time. As a consequence of this

determination, the requirements of

section 182(b)(1) concerning the

submission of the 15 percent reasonable

further progress plan and ozone

attainment demonstration and the

requirements of section 172(c)(9)

concerning contingency measures are

not applicable to the area so long as the

area does not violate the ozone

standard.

The EPA emphasizes that these

determinations are contingent upon the

continued monitoring and continued

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS in the affected area.

When and if a violation of the ozone

NAAQS is monitored in the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties nonattainment area

(consistent with the requirements

contained in 40 CFR Part 58 and

recorded in AIRS), the EPA will provide

notice to the public in the Federal

Register. Such a violation would mean

that the area would thereafter have to

address the requirements of section

182(b)(1) and section 172(c)(9) since the

basis for the determination that they do

not apply would no longer exist.

As a consequence of the

determination that these areas have

attained the NAAQS and that the

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements

of section 182(b)(1) and contingency

measure requirement of section

172(c)(9) do not presently apply, these

are no longer requirements within the

meaning of 40 CFR § 52.31(c)(1).

Consequently, the sanctions clock

started by EPA on January 19, 1994, for

failure to submit SIP revisions required

by the provisions of the CAA is hereby

stopped.

Specific to the Salt Lake and Davis

Counties’ ozone nonattainment area,

Governor Michael Leavitt submitted a

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan on November 12, 1993. On January

13, 1995, the Governor submitted

revisions to that initial submittal that

included revised emission inventories.

Because the State submitted an Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan SIP revision for Salt Lake and

Davis Counties, in lieu of a 15 percent

SIP revision, Salt Lake and Davis

Counties have been subject to the motor

vehicle emissions budget in the Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan SIP revision for transportation

conformity purposes (see 40 CFR

93.128(i)).

Pursuant to EPA’s new May 10, 1995,

policy, the State may continue to

demonstrate conformity to this

submitted motor vehicle emissions

budget, or the State may choose to

withdraw the applicability of the motor

vehicle emissions budget in the Ozone

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan SIP revision for transportation

conformity purposes, through the

submittal of a letter from the Governor.

If the applicability of the submitted

motor vehicle emissions budget is

withdrawn for transportation

conformity purposes, only the build/nobuild and less-than-1990 tests will

apply until the Ozone Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan are

approved. If the applicability of the

submitted motor vehicle emissions

budget is not withdrawn for

transportation conformity purposes, it

will continue to apply.

The EPA finds that there is good

cause for this action to become effective

immediately upon publication because a

delayed effective date is unnecessary

due to the nature of this action, which

is a determination that certain Act

requirements do not apply for so long as

the areas continue to attain the

standard. The immediate effective date

for this action is authorized under both

5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(1), which provides that

rulemaking actions may become

effective less than 30 days after

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or

recognizes an exemption or relieves a

restriction’’ and § 553(d)(3), which

allows an effective date less than 30

days after publication ‘‘as otherwise

provided by the agency for good cause

found and published with the rule.’’

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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000. Today’s

determination does not create any new

requirements, but suspends the

indicated requirements. Therefore,

because this notice does not impose any

new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on small

entities affected.

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rulemaking that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule. Under section

205, the EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this

final rule action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

imposes no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

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

petitions for judicial review of this final

rule action determining that the Salt

Lake and Davis Counties ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

NAAQS for ozone and that certain

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements

of section 182(b)(1) and the contingency

measures provisions of section 172(c)(9)

no longer apply must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 18,

1995. 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 CAA

section 307(b)(2)).

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Nitrogen oxides,

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 36729

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and record keeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 13, 1995.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52, Subpart TT, 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 TT—Utah

2. Section 52.2332 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.2332 Control Strategy: Ozone.

Determinations—EPA is determining

that, as of July 18, 1995, the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

ozone standard based on air quality

monitoring data from 1992, 1993, and

1994, and that the reasonable further

progress and attainment demonstration

requirements of section 182(b)(1) and

related requirements of section 172(c)(9)

of the Clean Air Act do not apply to the

area for so long as the area does not

monitor any violations of the ozone

standard. If a violation of the ozone

NAAQS is monitored in the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties ozone

nonattainment area, these

determinations shall no longer apply.

[FR Doc. 95–17755 Filed 7–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 3F4225/R2150; FRL–4964–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Triasulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

tolerances for residues of the herbicide

triasulfuron [3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-2-(2-chloroethoxy)

phenylsulfonyl)urea] in or on the raw

agricultural commodities (RACs) grass

forage at 7.0 parts per million (ppm) and

grass hay at 2.0 ppm. This document

also increases the tolerance for kidney

of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep

to 0.5 ppm. Ciba-Geigy Corp. requested

these tolerances in a petition submitted

to EPA pursuant to the Federal Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective July 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 3F4225/

R2150], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. 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. A copy of any

objections and hearing request 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.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [PP 3F4225/R2150].

No Confidential Business Information

(CBI) should be submitted through email. Electronic copies of objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail, Robert J. Taylor, Product Manager

(PM-25), Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 241, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

6027; e-mail:

taylor.robert@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of October 21, 1993 (58

FR 54354), EPA issued a notice

announcing that Ciba-Geigy Corp.,

Agricultural Division, P.O. Box 18300,

Greensboro, NC 27419, had submitted a

pesticide petition (PP 3F4225)

proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by

establishing a regulation under section

408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)) to

permit residues of the herbicide

triasulfuron, 3-(6-methoxy-4-methyl1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-(2-(2-chloroethoxy)

phenylsulfonyl)urea, in or on the raw

agricultural commodities (RACs) grass

forage at 7.0 ppm and grass hay at 2.0

ppm. There were no comments or

requests for referral to an advisory

committee received in response to the

notice of filing.

The petitioner subsequently amended

the petition by submitting a revised

Section F proposing to establish

tolerances for residues of the herbicide

triasulfuron in or on the RACs grass

forage at 7.0 ppm, grass hay at 2.0 ppm,

and to increase the established

tolerances on kidney of cattle, goats,

hogs, horses, and sheep to 0.5 ppm. In

the Federal Register of May 24, 1995 (60

FR 27506), EPA issued an amended

filing notice proposing these tolerances.

There were no comments or requests for

referral to an advisory committee

recieved in response to the notice.

In the Federal Register of May 3, 1995

(60 FR 21734), EPA issued a document

in the Federal Register which changed

the current time-limited tolerances for

residues of the herbicide triasulfuron to

permanent tolerances.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicology data listed

below were considered in support of

these tolerances.

1. Several acute studies placing

technical-grade triasulfuron in Toxicity

Categories III and IV. It is not a dermal

sensitizer.

2. A subchronic (90-day) feeding

study in which male and female rats

were fed diets containing triasulfuron

yielding dose levels of 0, 9.8/12.5, 517/

668, and 1,082/1,430 (male/female)

milligrams/kilogram body weight/day

(mg/kg/day) demonstrated a noobservable-effect level (NOEL) of 9.8/

12.5 (males/ females) mg/kg/day based

on decreased body weight and food

intake in males and females and

increased kidney atrophy and epithelial

hyperplasia in females 517/668 (males/

females) mg/kg/day.

3. A 1-year feeding study with male

and females dogs fed diets containing

triasulfuron yielding dose levels of 0,

2.5, 25, and 125/250 mg/kg/day

demonstrated a NOEL of 2.5 mg/kg/day

based on increased relative (organ to

body weight ratio) liver weight and

prostate cystic hyperplasia at 25 mg/kg/

day. After 10 weeks, dogs receiving 250

mg/kg/day exhibited reduced weight