Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29959

Oregon’s plan for the attainment and

maintenancce of the national standards

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 00–11671 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN 119–1a; FRL–6601–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a

redesignation request submitted by the

State of Indiana. This action, which

Indiana requested on March 2, 2000,

redesignates Marion County

(Indianapolis) to attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for lead. In addition, EPA is

also approving a maintenance plan for

Marion County. The plan is designed to

ensure maintenance of the lead NAAQS

for at least 10 years. Indiana submitted

the maintenance plan with the

redesignation request.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective on July 10, 2000, unless EPA

receives adverse written comments by

June 9, 2000. If EPA receives an adverse

written comment, EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and will inform the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J),

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the revision request are

available for inspection at the following

address: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend

that you telephone Phuong Nguyen,

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–

6701 before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886–6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA. This supplemental information

section is organized as follows:

I. General Information

1. What action is EPA taking today?

2. Why is EPA taking this action?

3. What is the background of this action?

II. Evaluation of the Redesignation Request

1. What criteria did EPA use to review the

redesignation request?

2. Did Indiana satisfy these criteria for

Marion County?

III. Maintenance Plan

What are the maintenance plan

requirements and how does the submission

meet maintenance plan requirements?

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

What action is EPA taking?

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions For Judicial Review

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, EPA is approving the

lead redesignation request submitted by

the State of Indiana for Marion County.

In addition, EPA is also approving the

lead maintenance plan for this County.

2. Why IS EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is taking this action because the

redesignation request meets the five

applicable Clean Air Act (Act) criteria.

EPA designated Marion County as a

nonattainment area for lead on

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).

Marion County now, however, meets the

lead NAAQS. Indiana reported that

there have been no exceedances

documented in Marion County at any

monitoring site since the second quarter

of 1994. Therefore, the monitoring data

show that the NAAQS for lead has been

attained in all portions of Marion

County. The State has developed a

maintenance plan for keeping lead

levels within the health-based air

quality standard for the next 10 years

and beyond. This maintenance plan

requires the County to consider impacts

of future activities on air quality and to

manage those activities.

3. What Is the Background for This

Action?

On November 6, 1991, EPA

designated a small portion of Franklin

Township, Marion County, Indiana as a

primary nonattainment area for the lead

NAAQS (56 FR 56694). On the same

date, EPA designated another small

portion of Wayne Township, in Marion

County, Indiana as an unclassifiable

area for lead.

Section 191(a) of the Act requires that

States containing areas designated

nonattainment for certain pollutants,

including lead, submit a revision to

their State Implementation Plan (SIP)

meeting the requirements of part D,

Title I of the Act, within 18 months of

the nonattainment designation.

Section 192(a) of the Act further

provides that SIPs must provide for

attainment of the applicable NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than 5 years from the date of the

nonattainment designation.

On March 23, 1994, the State

submitted a revised rule (326 IAC 15)

and supplemented the submittal on

September 21, 1994. EPA deemed the

submittal complete in a September 23,

1994 letter, and approved the rule as

part of the SIP on May 3, 1995 (60 FR

21717), fulfilling the requirement of

section 192(a).

On February 25, 1997, Refined Metals

Corporation sent a letter to the

Indianapolis Environmental Resources

Management Division (ERMD) stating

that all operations at its facility would

cease on February 28, 1997. On March

13, 1997, the Indianapolis ERMD

received a second letter from the

company requesting termination of its

current operating permit. The company

also withdrew its title V permit

application. The Refined Metals facility

was the only major lead source in the

current nonattainment portion of

Marion County.

II. Evaluation of the Redesignation

Request

1. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review

the Redesignation Request?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, as

amended in 1990, establishes five

requirements to be met before EPA may

designate an area from nonattainment to

attainment. These are:

(A) The area has attained the

applicable NAAQS.

(B) The area has a fully-approved SIP

under section 110(k) of the Act.

(C) The EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality in the area

is due to permanent and enforceable

emission reductions.

(D) The EPA has determined that the

maintenance plan for the area has met

all of the requirements of section 175A

of the Act.

(E) The State has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110

and part D of the Act.

29960 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2. Did Indiana Satisfy These Criteria for

Marion County?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the

NAAQS

Relevant agency guidance is provided

in both an April 21, 1983, document on

‘‘Section 107 Designation Policy

Summary,’’ and a September 4, 1992,

document on ‘‘Procedures for

processing requests to redesignate areas

to attainment.’’ The April 21, 1983,

memorandum states that eight

consecutive quarters of data showing

lead NAAQS attainment are required for

redesignation. The September 4, 1992,

memorandum states that additional

dispersion modeling is not required in

support of a lead redesignation request

if there is an adequate modeled

attainment demonstration submitted

and approved as part of the

implemented SIP, and there is no

indication of an existing air quality

violation.

Indiana’s March 2, 2000, submittal

provided ambient monitoring data

showing that Marion County has met

the lead NAAQS for the period 1995 to

1998. The most recent air quality data

shows there has been no exceedance

reported in Marion County for the last

5 years (1995–1999).

Dispersion modeling is commonly

used to demonstrate attainment of the

lead NAAQS. Indiana used the ISCLT2

model to predict lead concentrations, as

discussed in the May 3, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 21717). Use of this

analysis, in conjunction with

information about current emission

levels, also indicates that the NAAQS

has been attained. No further dispersion

modeling is needed for the County

redesignation. Indiana has also provided

evidence that sources in this County are

complying with the specific limits in

the SIP, 326 IAC 15–1–2. The Indiana

lead SIP rule applies to all significant

stationary sources of lead in the County.

Based on this evidence, EPA concludes

that emissions are sufficiently low to

assure attainment throughout the area

currently designated nonattainment.

B. Fully Approved SIP

The SIP for the area at issue must be

fully approved under section 110(k) of

the Act and must satisfy all

requirements that apply under that

section.

EPA’s guidance for implementing

section 110 of the Act is contained in

the general preamble to title I (44 FR

20372, April 14, 1979; and 57 FR 13498,

April 16, 1992). EPA has previously

determined that the lead SIP for Marion

County, with limits in 326 IAC 15–1–2,

meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(D) and sections 191(a) and

192(a) of the Act. Specifically, EPA

approved the lead SIP for Marion

County (in 326 IAC 15–1–2) on May 3,

1995 (60 FR 21717).

The current submittal provides for the

control of both stack and fugitive

emissions by requiring revised emission

limitations, improved monitoring,

building enclosures, an amended

fugitive lead dust plan, and contingency

measures in the event that subsequent

violations of the lead NAAQS occur.

The previous modeling showed that

ambient air quality in the vicinity of

Refined Metals met the NAAQS, which

is consistent with the monitored lead

concentration for this action. Given that

the major source in the area has shut

down, emission levels are now well

below the levels shown in 1995

modeling to be sufficient to achieve the

NAAQS.

C. Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

Indiana, in its submission, cites four

factors which it believes helped the area

attain the lead NAAQS. These are:

1. The permanent shutdown of the

Refined Metals facility in the

nonattainment portion of the County;

2. Implementation of the federal

initiative requiring the elimination of

lead in gasoline used by on-road mobile

sources;

3. Compliance by Quemetco, Inc.,

with the lead SIP and the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead

smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart X);

and,

4. The permanent shutdown of four

other facilities, which provided a small

additional decrease of lead emissions in

this area.

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

Section 175(A) of the Act requires

states that submit a redesignation

request to include a maintenance plan

to ensure that the attainment of the

NAAQS for any pollutant is maintained.

The maintenance plan is a SIP revision

which provides for maintenance of

relevant NAAQS in the area for at least

ten years after the approval of a

redesignation to attainment. Eight years

after the redesignation, States must

submit a revised maintenance plan

demonstrating attainment for ten years

following the initial ten-year period. To

provide for the possibility of future

NAAQS violations, the maintenance

plan must contain contingency

measures to assure that a state will

promptly correct any violation of the

standard that occurs after redesignation.

The contingency provisions are to

include a requirement that a state will

implement all measures for controlling

the air pollutant of concern that were

contained in the SIP prior to

redesignation.

The reductions discussed in section C

above are permanent, and no significant

increases in lead emission are expected.

Therefore, we expect the area to remain

in attainment. Additional discussion of

the maintenance plan is provided

below.

E. Part D and Section 110

To be redesignated to attainment,

section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that an area

must have met all applicable

requirements of section 110(a)(2) and

Part D of the Act. The EPA approved

Indiana’s previous SIP submittal

because it satisfied all of the applicable

Federal requirements (60 FR 21717).

The submittal for Marion County also

satisfies the requirements of sections

191(a) and 192(a) of the Act by

providing the necessary elements to

reach attainment of the lead NAAQS no

later than 5 years from the January 6,

1992, nonattainment designation.

During 1994, an ambient monitor near

the Refined Metals facility recorded

some lead standard violations,

apparently due to the company’s failure

to: keep the materials storage building

under negative pressure; operate its

continuous opacity monitor and to

provide valid data for the M–1

baghouse; comply with the facility’s

lead dust control program; and maintain

sweeper operating records. The

complete shutdown of the Refined

Metals facility on February 25, 1997, has

eliminated most of the area’s lead

emissions.

III. Maintenance Plan

What Are the Maintenance Plan

Requirements and How Does the

Submission Meet Maintenance Plan

Requirements?

Guidance on redesignations issued

September 4, 1992 identified five topics

for maintenance plans to address:

A. The Attainment Inventory

The State needs to identify the

sources of emissions in the area as well

as the emissions level sufficient to attain

the lead NAAQS, and include emissions

during the period when the area

attained the NAAQS.

The March 2, 2000, submittal

identified the lead emissions from major

and minor permitted sources located in

Marion County between 1985–1998.

Indiana chose 1996 as the base year for

the attainment emission inventory

because that year has extensive lead

emission data available.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29961

B. Maintenance Demonstration

The State needs to demonstrate that

future emissions will not exceed the

level established by the attainment

inventory.

On December 6, 1994, the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) issued Refined

Metals a notice of violation (Cause

Number A–2521). On January 10, 1995,

the IDEM and Refined Metals signed an

agreed Order to Settle Cause Number A–

2521. This agreement helped to decrease

lead emissions from 2 tons per year in

1985 to 0.0179100 tons per year in 1996,

and to eliminate all lead emissions

entirely in 1997, due to the permanent

shutdown of the Refined Metals facility.

Indiana projected the annual lead

emissions increase from 1996 to 2010 to

account for the increase in production at

remaining sources in Marion County.

The growth factors, which are contained

in Enclosure C to the March 2, 2000,

submittal, were used to calculate the

projected growth in emissions from

1996 to 2010. Base on these factors, the

annual lead emissions are expected to

increase by 8.56% by the year 2010,

from 2.897 tons per year in 1996 to

3.145 tons per year in 2010. The

projected levels for the year 2010 will be

considerably lower than the actual 1990

total Marion County lead emissions

(9.331 tons per year). Therefore, even

though other sources in the County are

projected to have a slight emission

increase by 2010, the projected emission

levels are well below the levels needed

to maintain the NAAQS.

C. Monitoring Network

The State must include provisions for

continued operation of an appropriate

air quality monitoring network.

The Indianapolis ERMD commits to

continue monitoring for lead in Marion

County at AIRS I.D. 18–097–0063

monitoring site and AIRS I.D. 18–097–

0076 monitoring site located in the

unclassifiable portion of the County,

which is adjacent to the Quemetco, Inc.

facility.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

The State must show how it will track

and verify the progress of the

maintenance plan.

To verify future maintenance during

the initial ten-year maintenance period,

the IDEM will re-evaluate the emissions

inventory once every three years. IDEM

will re-evaluate the inventory based in

part on the annual NET update. Indiana

will prepare a new inventory if there is

any new lead source growth or other

changes from the initial attainment

inventory.

E. Contingency Plan

The maintenance plan must include

contingency measures which ensure

prompt correction of any violation of

the lead standards.

Future contingency measures for this

area will include requiring any

proposed stationary sources of lead

emissions to comply with all applicable

New Source Review provisions. The

IDEM and the Indianapolis ERMD will

also closely monitor existing stationary

sources of lead emissions. These

Agencies will use the two methods

identified below to develop the

additional controls to assure future

attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard for lead, if there is an

exceedance of the lead standard:

1. During routine inspections of

permitted stationary sources, the

Indianapolis ERMD will evaluate any

potential increases in lead emissions at

these facilities, and,

2. The IDEM and the Indianapolis

ERMD will examine the annual point

source inventory for sources with

increases in emissions and for any new

sources. Emissions reporting is required

by the annual ‘‘emission statement’’

reporting requirements found in 326

IAC 2–6.

EPA finds that these elements of

Indiana’s submittal satisfy applicable

maintenance plan requirements.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is approving Indiana’s lead

redesignation request, which was

submitted on March 2, 2000. In

addition, EPA is also approving the

maintenance plan for Marion County,

which was submitted with the

redesignation request, as adequately

ensuring that the lead NAAQS will be

maintained.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because EPA

views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

written comments be filed. This action

will be effective without further notice

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

written comment by June 9, 2000.

Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish a final rule

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on July 10, 2000.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (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 Agency 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.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

29962 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

governments. This action does not

involve or impose any requirements that

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule 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, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., versus U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

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. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed 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

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 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. 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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). This

rule will be effective July 10, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by June 9, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 10, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29963

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Lead, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: April 20, 2000.

Francis X. Lyons,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulation are amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.797 is amended by

removing the introductory text and

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.797 Control strategy: Lead.

* * * * *

(d) On March 2, 2000, Indiana

submitted a maintenance plan for

Marion County as part of its request to

redesignate the County to attainment of

the lead standard.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

2. The table in § 81.315 entitled

‘‘Indiana Lead’’ is amended to read as

follows:

§ 81.315 Indiana.

* * * * *

INDIANA—LEAD

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Marion County (Part)—Part of Franklin Township: Thompson

Road on the south; Emerson Avenue on the west; Five

Points Road on the East; and Troy Avenue on the north.

July 10,

2000

Attainment.

Marion County (Part)—Part of Wayne Township: Rockville

Road on the north; Girls School Road on the east; Washington Street on the south; and Bridgeport Road on the

west.

July 10,

2000

Attainment.

Rest of State Not Designated.

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11423 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300994; FRL–6555–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Myclobutanil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

tolerances for combined residues of

myclobutanil in or on a variety of food

commodities. Rohm and Haas Company

and the Interregional Research Project

#4 (IR–4) requested these tolerances

under the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

10, 2000. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–300994, must be received

by EPA on or before July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–300994 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Hoyt Jamerson, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

308–9368; and e-mail address:

jamerson.hoyt@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you sell, distribute, manufacture, or use

pesticides for agricultural applications,

process food, distribute or sell food, or

implement governmental pesticide

regulations. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

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 the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.