Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33461

[FR Doc. 00–12792 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[AD–FRL–6603–5]

RIN 2060–ZA03

Federal Plan Requirements for Large

Municipal Waste Combustors

Constructed On or Before September

20, 1994

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action on the ‘‘Federal Plan

Requirements for Large Municipal

Waste Combustors Constructed on or

Before September 20, 1994.’’ The

amendments in this document clarify

the final compliance date, update the

list of which large municipal waste

combustor (MWC) units are affected by

the Federal plan, and add a site-specific

compliance schedule for one MWC unit.

On November 12, 1998, the EPA

adopted the Federal plan to implement

emission guidelines for large MWC

units located in areas that are not

covered by an approved and currently

effective State plan. We are updating the

MWC Federal plan to identify large

MWC units for which a State plan was

approved and became effective since

adoption of the Federal plan (November

12, 1998). We are also amending certain

regulations to reflect receipt of negative

declarations from States that have

certified that there are no large MWC

units located in the State that would be

subject to the Federal plan. We are also

amending a table in the Federal plan to

clarify that in all cases for all large

MWC units, final compliance with all

emission limits including the mercury

(Hg) and dioxins/furans emission limits

must be achieved by December 19, 2000.

Finally, we are amending a table to add

the site-specific compliance schedule

for one additional MWC unit. Today’s

action does not change the emission

limits for large MWC units nor does it

change the level of health protection

that the Federal plan provides.

DATES: These amendments to part 62 are

effective on July 24, 2000, without

further notice unless we receive

significant material adverse comments

by June 23, 2000. If we receive such

comments, we will publish, on or before

this rule’s effective date, a document in

the Federal Register withdrawing this

direct final rule and informing the

public that this direct final rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–6102), Attn:

Docket No. A–97–45/Category V–D, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically. For information on

submitting comments electronically, see

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Address all comments and data for this

action, whether on paper or in

electronic form, such as through e-mail

or disk, to Docket No. A–97–45/

Category V–D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

procedural and implementation

information regarding these

amendments, contact Ms. Julie

Andresen McClintock at (919) 541–

5339, Program Implementation and

Review Group, Information Transfer and

Program Integration Division (MD–12),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711. For State-specific information

regarding the implementation of this

Federal plan, contact the appropriate

Regional Office (table 1) as shown in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket. Docket No. A–97–45 contains

information considered by EPA in

developing the MWC Federal plan and

this action. You can inspect the docket

and copy materials from 8 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The docket is located at

the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 260–7548 or fax (202) 260–4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are

publishing these amendments without

prior proposal because we view these

amendments as noncontroversial and

anticipate no adverse comment.

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to these amendments if

adverse comments are filed. These

amendments will be effective on July

24, 2000, without further notice unless

we receive adverse comment on the

parallel proposal by June 23, 2000. If we

receive such comments, we will publish

a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that these

amendments will not take effect. We

will address all public comments in a

subsequent final amendment package

based on the proposed amendments. We

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting must do so at

this time. If no comments are received,

the public is advised that these

amendments will be effective on July

24, 2000, and no further action will be

taken on these amendments.

Regulated Entities

Entities regulated by this action are

existing MWC units with the capacity to

combust greater than 250 tons per day

of municipal solid waste (MSW) (large

MWC units) unless the unit is subject to

a section 111(d)/129 State plan that has

been approved by EPA and is currently

in effect. Regulated categories and

entities include the following North

American Industrial Classification

System (NAICS) codes and Standard

Industrial Classification System (SIC)

codes.

Category NAICS

codes SIC codes Examples of regulated entities

Industry and local government agencies.562213

92411

4953

9511

Waste-to-energy plants that generate electricity or steam from the combustion of garbage by feeding municipal waste into large furnaces.

Incinerators that combust trash but do not recover energy from the waste.

The foregoing table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by the MWC

Federal plan. For specific applicability

criteria, see 40 CFR 62.14100 and

62.14102.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

Comments may be submitted

electronically. Send electronic

submittals to: ‘‘A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov’’. Submit

33462 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

electronic comments in American

Standard Code for Information

Interchange (ASCII) format. Avoid the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Electronic comments on

the proposed amendments to the

Federal plan may be filed online at any

Federal Depository Library. Comments

and data will also be accepted on disks

in WordPerfect version 5.1 or 6.1 file

format (or ASCII file format). Address

all comments and data for the proposal,

whether on paper or in electronic form,

such as through e-mail or disk, to

Docket No. A–97–45/ Category V–D.

Regional Office Contacts

For information regarding the

implementation of the MWC Federal

plan, contact the appropriate EPA

Regional Office as shown in table 1.

This table has been updated since

published on November 12, 1998 (63 FR

63193).

TABLE 1.—EPA REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS

Regional contact Phone No. Fax No.

John Courcier, U.S. EPA, Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont), 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP) Boston, MA 02114–2023 .................................. (617) 918–1659 (617) 918–1505

Kirk Wieber .................................................................................................................................................. (212) 637–3381 (212) 637–3901

Argie Cirillo .................................................................................................................................................. (212) 637–3203

Craig Flamm ................................................................................................................................................ (212) 637–4021

U.S. EPA, Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), 290 Broadway, New York,

NY 10007–1866

James B. Topsale, U.S. EPA/3AP22, Region III (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029 .................................. (215) 814–2190 (215) 814–2114

Scott Davis, U.S. EPA/APTMD, Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee), Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 ....................................................................................................................................... (404) 562–9127 (404) 562–9095

Douglas Aburano (MN) ................................................................................................................................ (312) 353–6960 (312) 886–5824

Mark Palermo (IL, IN, OH) .......................................................................................................................... (312) 886–6082

Charles Hatten (MI, WI) ............................................................................................................................... (312) 886–6031

U.S. EPA/AT18J, Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin), 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604

Mick Cote, U.S. EPA, Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1445 Ross

Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202–2733 .............................................................................................. (214) 665–7219 (214) 665–7263

Wayne Kaiser, U.S. EPA, Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska), 726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas

City, KS 66101 ......................................................................................................................................... (913) 551–7603 (913) 551–7065

Mike Owens, U.S. EPA, Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–2466 ................................................................. (303) 312–6440 (303) 312–6064

Patricia Bowlin, U.S. EPA/Air 4, Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii,

Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 ......................... (415) 744–1188 (415) 744–1076

Catherine Woo, U.S. EPA, Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle,

WA 98101 ................................................................................................................................................ (206) 553–1814 (206) 553–0110

Outline

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Amendments to Part 62—Negative

Declarations

II. Amendments to Part 62, Subpart FFF

A. Amendment to Table 1

B. Amendment to Table 5

C. Amendment to Table 6

D. Amendment to Table 6

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

G. Congressional Review Act

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

J. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

I. Amendments to Part 62—Negative

Declarations

We are amending part 62 to reflect the

receipt of negative declaration letters. A

negative declaration letter is a letter

from a State authority certifying that

there are no designated facilities (MWC

units with a capacity to combust greater

than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste) in the State. The negative

declaration letter is submitted in lieu of

a State plan. We are documenting the

receipt of negative declarations by

amending 40 CFR part 62, subparts C

(Alaska), D (Arizona), E (Arkansas), G

(Colorado), I (Delaware), J (District of

Columbia), N (Idaho), S (Kentucky), T

(Louisiana), Z (Mississippi), BB

(Montana), DD (Nevada), GG (New

Mexico), JJ (North Dakota), NN

(Pennsylvania), QQ (South Dakota), SS

(Texas), TT (Utah), XX (West Virginia),

YY (Wisconsin), ZZ (Wyoming), BBB

(Puerto Rico), and CCC (Virgin Islands).

II. Amendments to Part 62, Subpart FFF

We published in the Federal Register

of November 12, 1998 (63 FR 63191) the

final rule establishing a Federal plan to

implement emission guidelines for large

MWC units located in areas not covered

by an approved and currently effective

State plan. We are making the following

technical amendments and updates to

the MWC Federal plan.

A. Amendments to Table 1

We are amending table 1 of subpart

FFF (40 CFR part 62) to add MWC units

for which a State plan was approved

and became effective since the final

MWC Federal plan was published in

November 1998. MWC units covered by

the State plans for Alabama, Maine,

Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and

Washington are added to table 1 of

subpart FFF.

B. Amendment to Table 5

We are amending table 5 of subpart

FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding footnote

e to clarify that in all cases for all large

MWC units, final compliance with all

emission limits including the mercury

and dioxins/furans emission limits must

be achieved no later than December 19,

2000. This footnote was inadvertently

omitted from the final MWC Federal

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33463

plan. The addition of this footnote

makes table 5 consistent with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, the

emission guidelines, and tables 4 and 6

of subpart FFF. Sections 129(b)(2) and

(3) of the Clean Air Act require State

and Federal plans to ensure that each

unit subject to the emission guidelines

is in compliance with all requirements

of the guidelines not later than 5 years

after the guidelines are promulgated.

Section 60.39b(d) of the emission

guidelines requires each unit subject to

the emission guidelines to be in

compliance with the mercury and

dioxins/furans emission limits no later

than 5 years after promulgation of the

guidelines. The emission guidelines,

which are implemented by either the

Federal or a State plan, were

promulgated on December 19, 1995,

making the final compliance date for

mercury and dioxins/furans for all large

MWC units December 19, 2000. The

emission guidelines require that the

owner or operator of an affected facility

that began construction, modification or

reconstruction after June 26, 1987

achieve final compliance with the

mercury and dioxins/furans emission

limits within 1 year after promulgation

of subpart FFF (i.e., by November 12,

1999) or 1 year after permit issuance.

C. Amendment to Table 6

We are amending table 6 of subpart

FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding footnote

c to clarify that the owner or operator

of an affected facility that began

construction, modification, or

reconstruction after June 26, 1987 must

achieve final compliance with the

mercury and dioxins/furans emission

limits within 1 year after promulgation

of subpart FFF (i.e., by November 12,

1999) or 1 year after permit issuance.

Permit issuance is issuance of a revised

construction permit or revised operating

permit, if a permit modification is

required to retrofit controls. Consistent

with § 60.39b(c)(5), we included the

provision pertaining to permit

modification in the Federal plan in

recognition of the fact that some owners

or operators of affected facilities would

need to obtain a permit modification

before they could retrofit controls. We

never intended for this accommodation

to be construed as relieving an owner or

operator of the obligation to be in

compliance with all emission limits by

no later than 5 years after promulgation

of the emission guidelines (i.e.,

December 19, 2000). The addition of

this footnote makes table 6 consistent

with table 5 of subpart FFF and the

emission guidelines. The emission

guidelines (§ 60.39b(c)(5)) require MWC

units that commenced construction,

reconstruction, or modification after

June 26, 1987 to achieve compliance

with the mercury and dioxins/furans

emission limits within 1 year after State

plan approval (or permit modification).

The footnote also clarifies that in all

cases for all large MWC units, final

compliance must be achieved no later

than December 19, 2000. (See

explanation in Section II.B above.) This

footnote was not originally included in

the final MWC Federal plan. The

addition of this footnote makes it clear

that table 6 is consistent with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act and

the emission guidelines. Sections

129(b)(2) and (3) of the Clean Air Act

require State and Federal plans to

ensure that each unit subject to the

emission guidelines is in compliance

with all requirements of the guidelines

not later than 5 years after the

guidelines are promulgated. Section

60.39b(d) of the emission guidelines

requires each unit subject to the

emission guidelines to be in compliance

with the mercury and dioxins/furans

emission limits no later than 5 years

after promulgation of the guidelines

(i.e., by December 19, 2000).

D. Amendment to Table 6

We are amending table 6 of subpart

FFF (40 CFR part 62) by adding a sitespecific compliance schedule and

increments of progress for unit 3A at the

New Hanover County Waste-to-Energy

Conversion facility in Wilmington,

North Carolina. Unit 3A at the New

Hanover County MWC facility had not

been identified as a large MWC unit

(capacity greater than 250 tpd) when

subpart FFF was promulgated in

November 1998. Prior to November

1998, the State of North Carolina

submitted a negative declaration letter

to certify that there were no large MWC

units in North Carolina. Subsequently,

the State obtained new information and

notified EPA that it believed that Unit

3A at the New Hanover County MWC

facility might be a large MWC unit and

thus subject to subpart FFF. We

confirmed that Unit 3A at the New

Hanover County MWC facility is a large

unit, and thus subject to subpart FFF.

The negative declaration letter is,

therefore, no longer applicable. Unit 3A

is larger than 250 tons per day (tpd) and

is covered by subpart FFF.

Due to the confusion over the size of

Unit 3A, the owner/operator of the New

Hanover County MWC did not have the

opportunity to submit a site-specific

compliance schedule. In developing the

promulgated Federal plan, EPA

provided the owner or operator of a

large MWC unit the opportunity to

submit a site-specific compliance

schedule. Unit 3A at the New Hanover

County MWC facility is already

equipped with an air pollution control

system incorporating a spray dryer/

fabric filter, and selective noncatalytic

reduction. Subpart FFF will only

require the addition of carbon injection

(or some other mechanism for meeting

the applicable dioxins/furans and

mercury emission limits), upgrading the

continuous emissions monitoring

system, and other less extensive

changes. For these reasons, we

determined that it was appropriate to

allow the owner/operator of the New

Hanover County MWC facility to submit

a site-specific schedule for Unit 3A. The

owner/operator of the New Hanover

County MWC facility has since

submitted such a schedule and we are

amending table 6 to add that sitespecific schedule for unit 3A. The sitespecific compliance schedule achieves

final compliance with all applicable

requirements no later than December 19,

2000, the same date as required for all

other MWC units subject to subpart FFF.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by EPA in the development

of this rulemaking. The docket is a

dynamic file, since material is added

throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

proposed and promulgated rule and

EPA responses to significant comments,

the contents of the docket will serve as

the record in case of judicial review (see

42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(A)). Docket

numbers A–89–08 and A–90–45 contain

the supporting information for the

December 19, 1995 emission guidelines.

Because the MWC Federal plan

implements the emission guidelines,

these dockets also contain the

supporting information for the MWC

Federal plan. Public comments received

on the MWC Federal plan are included

in docket number A–97–45.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in the MWC Federal plan

have been submitted for approval to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document has been prepared by EPA

(ICR No. 1847.01) and a copy may be

obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at

33464 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; Office of Environmental

Information, Collection Strategies

Division (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; by

e-mail at ‘‘farmer.sandy@epa.gov’’, or by

calling (202) 260–2740. A copy may also

be downloaded off the internet at ‘‘http:/

/www.epa.gov/icr’’. OMB approved ICR

1847.01 in December 1998 and the OMB

approval number is #20600390.

Today’s direct final rule will have no

effect on the estimates of the

information collection burden. The

technical changes clarify requirements

and do not impose additional

requirements. Therefore, we have not

revised the ICR.

C. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), we must

determine whether a regulatory action is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Today’s direct final rule includes only

minor amendments. Therefore, we have

determined that this action is not

significant and OMB has waived review.

OMB determined that the promulgated

Federal plan was ‘‘not significant’’

under Executive Order 12866. The

promulgated Federal plan simply

implements the 1995 MWC emission

guidelines (as amended in 1997) and

does not result in any additional control

requirements or impose any additional

costs above those previously considered

during promulgation of the 1995 MWC

emission guidelines. The EPA

considered the 1995 emission

guidelines and standards to be

significant and the rules were reviewed

by OMB in 1995 (see 60 FR 65405).

D. Executive Order 13084—Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly 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 OMB, 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 direct final rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. The Federal plan adopted

on November 12, 1998 does not

significantly or uniquely affect

communities of Indian tribal

governments. We believe that no large

MWC units are located in Indian

country. In addition, we have

determined that the promulgated

Federal plan does not include any new

Federal mandates or additional

requirements above those previously

considered during promulgation of the

1995 MWC emission guidelines. (See

the discussion above on Executive

Order 12875 in this section.)

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this direct final rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), generally requires EPA

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute

unless EPA certifies that the rule will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

in this industry with a gross annual

revenue less than $6 million; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town

school district or special district or a

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

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

owned and operated and not dominant

in its field.

Today’s action is not subject to the

requirements of the RFA as modified by

SBREFA because it only makes minor

technical amendments to some of the

rule’s requirements and it does not

impose any additional requirements.

During the 1995 MWC emission

guidelines rulemaking, EPA estimated

that few, if any, small entities would be

affected by the promulgated guidelines

and standards, and therefore, a

regulatory flexibility analysis was not

required (see 60 FR 65413). The EPA

has concluded that these amendments

to the MWC Federal plan will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities and a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector of $100 million

or more in any 1 year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33465

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this

direct final rule 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 in any 1 year. Therefore,

the requirements of sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA do not apply to this

action. The EPA has likewise

determined that today’s amendments to

the rule do not include regulatory

requirements that would significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Thus, today’s action is not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA.

G. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

SBREFA of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing this rule, its

amendments, and other required

information to the United States Senate,

the United States House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

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

will be effective July 24, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standard bodies.

The NTTAA requires EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when EPA decides not to use available

and applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

Today’s action does not amend or

modify technical standards, therefore,

the requirements of the NTTAA do not

apply.

I. Executive Order 13045—Protection of

Children and Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that EPA determines

(1) is economically significant as

defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) for which the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by EPA.

Today’s action is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866. Further, EPA interprets

Executive Order 13045 as applying only

to those regulatory actions that are

based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This rule is

based on technology performance and

not on health or safety risks.

J. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of 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. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the EPA consults with State

and local officials early in the process

of developing the proposed regulation.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and EPA’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation, and a statement of the extent

to which the concerns of State and local

officials have been met. Also, when EPA

transmits a draft final rule with

federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

This direct final rule does not have

Federalism implications. It 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. This direct final

rule clarifies the final compliance date,

updates the status of which MWC units

are affected by the Federal plan, and

adds a site-specific compliance

schedule for one MWC unit. These

amendments would primarily affect

private industry, and do not impose

significant economic costs on State or

local governments.

Although section 6 of Executive Order

13132 does not apply to these proposed

amendments, EPA consulted with

representatives of State and local

governments during development of the

Federal plan to enable them to provide

meaningful and timely input (see 63 FR

63201, November 12, 1998).

33466 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 62, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671 et seq.

Subpart C—Alaska

2. Amend subpart C by adding an

undesignated center heading and

§ 62.354 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.354 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Conservation submitted

June 30, 1997 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Alaska that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart D—Arizona

3. Amend subpart D by adding an

undesignated center heading, and

adding § 62.620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.620 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted June

7, 1996 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Arizona that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart E—Arkansas

4. Amend subpart E by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.875 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.875 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Pollution Control and Ecology

submitted July 1, 1997 certifying that

there are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of Arkansas

that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb,

of this chapter.

5. Amend subpart G by adding a title,

adding an undesignated center heading,

and adding § 62.1370 to read as follows:

Subpart G—Colorado

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.1370 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of Public

Health and Environment submitted July

30, 1996 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Colorado that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart I—Delaware

6. Amend subpart I by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.1960 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.1960 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control

submitted March 26, 1996 certifying

that there are no existing municipal

waste combustor units in the State of

Delaware that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart J—District of Columbia

7. Amend subpart J by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.2130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.2130 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

submitted July 6, 1992 certifying that

there are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the District of

Columbia that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart N—Idaho

8. Amend subpart N by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.3130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.3130 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of Health

and Welfare submitted October 28, 1996

certifying that there are no existing

municipal waste combustor units in the

State of Idaho that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart S—Kentucky

9. Amend subpart S by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.4370 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.4370 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department for

Environmental Protection submitted

December 18, 1996 certifying that there

are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of

Kentucky that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart T—Louisiana

10. Amend subpart T by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.4650 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.4650 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter From the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted May

21, 1996 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Louisiana that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart Z—Mississippi

11. Amend subpart Z by adding

§ 62.6125 to read as follows:

§ 62.6125 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted

September 24, 1997 certifying that there

are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of

Mississippi that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33467

Subpart BB—Montana

12. Amend subpart BB by adding an

undesignated center heading, and

adding § 62.6620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.6620 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted June

3, 1997 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Montana that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart DD—Nevada

13. Amend subpart DD by adding an

undesignated center heading, and

adding § 62.7120 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.7120 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection submitted

March 26, 1997 certifying that there are

no existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Nevada that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

14. Amend subpart GG by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.7857 to read as follows:

Subpart GG—New Mexico

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.7857 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Environment

Department submitted January 10, 1997

certifying that there are no existing

municipal waste combustor units in the

State of New Mexico that are subject to

part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart JJ—North Dakota

15. Amend subpart JJ by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.8620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.8620 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of Health

submitted May 1, 1996 certifying that

there are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of North

Dakota that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania

16. Amend subpart NN by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.9643 and 62.9644 to read as

follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.9643 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Allegheny County

Health Department submitted March 14,

1996 certifying that there are no existing

municipal waste combustor units in

Allegheny County that are subject to

part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

§ 62.9644 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the City of Philadelphia

Department of Public Health submitted

February 14, 1997 certifying that there

are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the City of

Philadelphia that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart QQ—South Dakota

17. Amend subpart QQ by adding an

undesignated center heading, and

adding § 62.10370 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.10370 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources

submitted June 20, 1997 certifying that

there are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of South

Dakota that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart SS—Texas

18. Amend subpart SS by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.10890 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.10890 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission

submitted May 13, 1997 certifying that

there are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of Texas

that are subject to part 60, subpart Cb,

of this chapter.

Subpart TT—Utah

19. Amend subpart TT by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.11130 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.11130 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted June

16, 1997 certifying that there are no

existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of Utah that are

subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart XX—West Virginia

20. Amend subpart XX by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.12110 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.12110 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Division of

Environmental Protection submitted

March 11, 1996 certifying that there are

no existing municipal waste combustor

units in the State of West Virginia that

are subject to part 60, subpart Cb, of this

chapter.

Subpart YY—Wisconsin

21. Amend subpart YY by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.12360 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.12360 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of Natural

Resources submitted September 26,

1997 certifying that there are no existing

33468 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

municipal waste combustor units in the

State of Wisconsin that are subject to

part 60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming

22. Amend subpart ZZ by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.12620 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.12620 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Environmental Quality submitted

October 29, 1996 certifying that there

are no existing municipal waste

combustor units in the State of

Wyoming that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart BBB—Puerto Rico

23. Amend subpart BBB by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.13104 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.13104 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Office of the Governor

submitted December 12, 1996 certifying

that there are no existing municipal

waste combustor units in the Territory

of Puerto Rico that are subject to part 60,

subpart Cb, of this chapter.

Subpart CCC—Virgin Islands

24. Amend subpart CCC by adding an

undesignated center heading and adding

§ 62.13354 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Municipal

Waste Combustors With the Capacity

To Burn Greater Than 250 Tons Per

Day of Municipal Solid Waste

§ 62.13354 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

Letter from the Department of

Planning and Natural Resources

submitted September 29, 1997 certifying

that there are no existing municipal

waste combustor units in the Territory

of Virgin Islands that are subject to part

60, subpart Cb, of this chapter.

25. Amend table 1 of subpart FFF by adding the following five entries in alphabetical order.

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART FFF—MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR UNITS (MWC UNITS) EXCLUDED FROM SUBPART FFF1

State MWC units

Alabama ............................................................. Existing facilities with an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste at the following MWC sites:

(a) Solid Waste Disposal Authority of the City of Huntsville, Alabama.

*******

Maine ................................................................. Existing facilities with an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal solid

waste at the following MWC sites:

(a) Penobscot Energy Recovery Company, Orrington, Maine.

(b) Maine Energy Recovery Company, Biddeford, Maine.

(c) Regional Waste Systems, Inc., Portland, Maine.

Maryland ............................................................ Existing MWC facilities with an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal

solid waste.

*******

Oklahoma ........................................................... Existing MWC facilities with an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal

solid waste at the following MWC site:

Ogden-Martin Systems of Tulsa, Incorporated, 2122 South Yukon Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

*******

Pennsylvania ...................................................... Existing MWC facilities with an MWC unit capacity greater than 250 tons per day of municipal

solid waste at the following MWC site:

(a) American Ref-fuel of Delaware Valley, LP (formerly Delaware County Resource Recovery

facility), City of Chester, PA.

(b) Harrisburg Materials, Energy, Recycling and Recovery Facility, City of Harrisburg, PA.

(c) Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, Conoy Township, Lancaster County,

PA.

(d) Montenay Montgomery Limited Partnership, Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, PA.

(e) Wheelabrator Falls, Inc., Falls Township, Bucks County, PA.

(f) York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority, York, PA.

*******

Notwithstanding the exclusions in table 1 of this subpart, this subpart applies to affected facilities not regulated by an EPA-approved and currently effective State or Tribal plan.

26. Amend table 5 of subpart FFF by revising entry number 1 ‘‘Emission limits for Hg, dioxins/furans’’ to read

as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33469

TABLE 5 OF SUBPART FFF—GENERIC COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES AND INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS (POST-1987 MWCS) a, b

Affected facilities

Increment 1

Submit final

control plan

Increment 2

Award contracts

Increment 3

Begin on-site

construction

Increment 4

Complete onsite construction

Increment 5

Final compliance

Affected facilities that commenced

construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 26, 1987

1. Emission limits for Hg,

dioxin/furan.

NAc ................... NAc ................... NAc ................... NAc ................... 11/12/99 or 1 year after permit

issuance d, e

*******

aTable 4 or 5 of this subpart applies to MWC units subject to the Federal plan except those with site-specific compliance schedules shown in

table 6 of this subpart. bAs an alternative to this schedule, the unit may close by December 19, 2000, complete retrofit while closed, and achieve final compliance

upon restarting. See §§ 62.14108(c), 62.14108(d), and 62.14109(i) of this subpart. cBecause final compliance is achieved in 1 year, no increments of progress are required.

dPermit issuance is issuance of a revised construction permit or revised operating permit, if a permit modification is required to retrofit controls. eFinal compliance must be achieved no later than December 19, 2000, even if the date ‘‘1 year after permit issuance’’ exceeds December 19,

2000.

27. Amend table 6 of subpart FFF by revising the table headings, adding a footnote ‘‘c’’ and adding a new entry

at the end of the table to read as follows:

TABLE 6 OF SUBPART FFF—SITE-SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES AND INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS a

Affected facilities at the following MWC

sites City, State

Increment

1

Submit

final control plan

Increment

2

Award

contracts

Increment

3

Begin onsite construction

Increment

4

Complete

on-site

construction

Increment

5

Final

compliance c

* * * ****

New Hanover County, Unit 3A ................ Wilmington, North Carolina ..................... 09/15/99 03/01/00 07/01/00 11/19/00 12/19/00

aThese schedules have been reviewed and determined to be acceptable by EPA.

bThis schedule applies to HCl, SO2, PM, Pb, Cd, CO, and NOx. However, owners and operators of large MWC units in New Jersey have the

option of reserving the portion of their control plan that addresses NOx. Owners and operators must submit the reserved portion to EPA by December 15, 1999. cThe owner or operator of an affected facility that began construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 26, 1987 must achieve final

compliance with the mercury and dioxins/furans limits within 1 year after promulgation of subpart FFF (i.e., by 11/12/99) or 1 year after permit

issuance. Permit issuance is issuance of a revised construction permit or revised operating permit if a permit modification is required to retrofit

controls. Final compliance must be achieved no later than December 19, 2000, even if the date ‘‘1 year after permit issuance’’ exceeds December 19, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–11811 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301001; FRL–6556–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Mancozeb; Re-establishment of

Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation re-establishes

a time-limited tolerance for combined

residues of the fungicide mancozeb,

calculated as zinc

ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (EBDC), and

its metabolite ethylenethiourea (ETU) in

or on ginseng at 2.0 part per million

(ppm) for an additional 20–month

period. This tolerance will expire and is

revoked on December 31, 2001. This

action is in response to EPA’s receipt of

an emergency exemption under section

18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) seeking

use of the pesticide on ginseng. Section

408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires EPA to

establish a time-limited tolerance or

exemption from the requirement for a

tolerance for pesticide chemical

residues in food that will result from the

use of a pesticide under an emergency

exemption granted by EPA under

section 18 of FIFRA.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

24, 2000. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–301001, must be received

by EPA on or before July 24, 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 III of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301001 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Dan Rosenblatt, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

308–9375; and e-mail address:

rosenblatt.dan@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected