Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 421

§ 813.5 Shipping or transmitting visual

information documentation images.

(a) COMCAM images. Send COMCAM

images to the DoD Joint Combat Camera

Center, Room 5A518, Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20330–3000, by the

fastest means possible, following the

approval procedures that on-scene and

theater commanders set.

(b) Other non-COMCAM images. After

use, send significant non-COMCAM

images to the appropriate DoD media

records center through the Air Force

record center accessioning point.

(c) Identification of VIDOC materials.

Clearly identify all VIDOC and

COMCAM material with slates,

captions, and cover stories.

§ 813.6 Planning and requesting combat

documentation.

(a) Planned combat documentation.

Air components identify documentation

needs as early as possible in OPLANs,

CONPLANs, and OPORDs and sent

copies of these plans to HQ AMC/

SCMV, 203 West Losey Street, Room

3180, Scott AFB, IL 62225–5223.

Include the contact for planning and

support.

(b) MAJCOMS may request that HQ

AMC document their activities. Send

information copies of requests to HQ

AFCIC/ITSM, 1250 Air Force Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20330–1250, and HQ

AMC/SCMV. When a supporting

component command operationally

controls HQ AMC COMCAM units,

other organizations that need support

must coordinate requests with the

supported command.

(c) Unplanned combat

documentation. Send short notice

requests to the supported operational

commander as soon as possible, with

information copies to HQ AFCIC/ITSM

and HQ AMC/SCMO. Identify end

product requirements, media formats,

and deadlines.

(d) Humanitarian, disaster relief, and

contingencies. Theater commanders

normally task the supporting

component through the Joint Operation

Planning and Execution System, that in

turn, requests support from HQ AMC.

HQ USAF can directly task HQ AMC to

document humanitarian, disaster relief,

or contingency activities if it does not

receive other tasking(s). In these cases,

coordinate with the supported unified

command.

§ 813.7 Readiness reporting.

All Air Force units assigned a DOC

statement report readiness status

through the SORTS process. See AFI

10–201, Status of Resources and

Training System, for specific

information and reporting criteria.

Janet A. Long,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–235 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–05–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY35–1–200, FRL–

6518–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Reasonably

Available Control Technology for

Oxides of Nitrogen for the State of New

York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes approval of

revisions to the New York State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

The State submitted this portion of the

implementation plan to satisfy Clean

Air Act (the Act) requirements for

adoption of rules for the application of

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in

the entire State. The intended affect of

this SIP revision is to reduce emissions

of NOX in order to help attain the

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before February 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to:

Raymond Werner, Acting Chief, Air

Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866.

Copies of the State submittal and

other information are available at the

following addresses for inspection

during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,

New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted

Gardella, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing today?

II. Why is EPA proposing approval of New

York’s SIP revisions?

III. What are EPA’s requirements for NOX

RACT?

IV. What do New York’s SIP revisions

contain?

A. SIP revision dated January 20, 1994

B. SIP revision dated April 29, 1999

V. What sources does New York’s NOX RACT

regulation affect?

VI. What exemptions does New York’s

regulation allow?

VII. Were there any approvability issues with

New York’s NOX RACT regulation and,

if so, how were they resolved?

A. Case-by-Case RACT Determinations

B. Certain Permitting Situation

C. Repowering Compliance Option

VIII. What are EPA’s conclusions?

IX. Administrative requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing

Today?

EPA proposes approval of New York’s

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) which New York submitted to

EPA on January 20, 1994 and April 29,

1999. The January 20, 1994 submittal

includes New York’s Subpart 227–2,

entitled ‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) for Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOX),’’ for statewide

implementation of New York’s NOX

RACT requirements, as well as revisions

to Part 200, entitled ‘‘General

Provisions,’’ Part 201, entitled ‘‘Permits

and Certificates,’’ and Subpart 227–1,

entitled ‘‘Stationary Combustion

Sources.’’ The April 29, 1999 submittal

includes amendments to Subpart 227–2.

EPA proposed action on other portions

(Part 200, Subpart 227–1 and Subpart

227–3) of the April 29, 1999 submittal

in a Federal Register notice published

on October 14, 1999.

II. Why Is EPA Proposing Approval of

New York’s SIP Revisions?

EPA has evaluated the SIP revisions

that New York submitted for

consistency with the Clean Air Act (the

Act), EPA guidelines and EPA policy.

EPA has determined that New York’s

SIP revisions dated January 20, 1994

and April 29, 1999 meet all

requirements and, therefore, EPA

proposes approval of New York’s SIP

revisions to implement and enforce NOX

RACT requirements statewide.

III. What Are EPA’s Requirements for

NOX RACT?

The air quality planning requirements

for the reduction of NOX emissions

through RACT are set out in section

182(f) of the Act. EPA describes the

section 182(f) requirements in a

422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

document, ‘‘State Implementation Plans;

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the

General Preamble; Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ published

November 25, 1992 (57 FR 55620). Refer

to the November 25, 1992 document for

detailed information on the NOX

requirements. Also refer to additional

guidance memoranda that EPA released

subsequent to the NOX Supplement. The

additional guidance includes: EPA

publication EPA–452/R–96–005 (March

1996) entitled ‘‘NOX Policy Documents

for The Clean Air Act of 1990’’; EPA’s

policy memorandum on the approval

options for generic RACT rules

submitted by States (November 1996);

EPA’s draft system-wide averaging

trading guidance (December 1993);

EPA’s publications of ‘‘Alternative

Control Technique Documents’’ which

are technical documents identifying

alternative controls for most categories

of stationary sources of NOX; and other

related EPA policy and guidance

documents.

The EPA has defined RACT as the

lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility

(44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979).

The Act requires that states include

requirements, where practicable, for

major stationary sources to include NOX

RACT controls by May 31, 1995. Section

182(f) of the Act requires statewide

application of the NOX RACT

requirements.

IV. What Do New York’s SIP Revisions

Contain?

The technical support document,

located in the official file, includes a

full description and detailed discussion

of New York’s SIP submittals and

revisions. The technical support

document for this proposed action is

available from the EPA contact listed

above in the ADDRESSES section. The

following is a summary of New York’s

submittals.

A. SIP Revision Dated January 20, 1994

New York held public hearings in

April 1993 on its NOX RACT plan.

Following the public hearings and the

comment period, New York adopted the

plan on January 19, 1994. On January

20, 1994, New York submitted the plan

to EPA as a revision to the SIP. EPA

reviewed the plan to determine

completeness in accordance with

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51. On

April 15, 1994, EPA found the submittal

to be administratively and technically

complete. New York’s January 20, 1994

SIP revision contains the following:

1. Subpart 227–2, New York’s NOX

RACT regulation, as the enforceable

mechanism which includes: a list of the

affected sources; definitions;

compliance plan requirements; control

requirements including emission limits;

compliance options for fuel switching,

system-wide averaging, alternative

RACT, and repowering; testing,

monitoring, and reporting requirements;

2. State rule Part 200 which was

amended to add new definitions and

emission testing requirements;

3. State rule Part 201 which revises

exemptions for certain sources so that

those units which have the potential to

be a major stationary source of NOX are

no longer categorically exempted from

permit and certificate requirements;

4. State rule Subpart 227–1 which

contains administrative revisions;

5. Records from the Public Hearings;

and

6. The State’s response to public

comments.

B. SIP Revision Dated April 29, 1999

The State proposed the April 29, 1999

SIP revision on September 16, 1998,

requested public comments by

November 9, 1998 and held public

hearings on the revision in November

1998. New York adopted the new and

amended rules on January 12, 1999 and

submitted the SIP revision to EPA on

April 29, 1999. EPA determined the

submittal administratively and

technically complete on June 18, 1999.

New York’s SIP revision dated April 29,

1999 contains the following:

1. Amended Subpart 227–2. The

Subpart 227–2 revisions include:

Removal of provisions which are no

longer applicable; requirements for

submission of a new RACT compliance

plan for sources subject to Subpart 227–

3 (New York’s NOX emissions budget

and allowance program); additional

wording which clarifies New York’s

approval of low NOX burners for midsize boilers; corrections in the

monitoring provisions to require heat

input weighted averaging instead of

arithmetic averaging; and requirements

that New York submit individual RACT

determinations to EPA as SIP revisions.

2. New Subpart 227–3 and

amendments to Part 200 and Subpart

227–1. EPA has proposed approval of

these three rules as published in a

Federal Register document on October

14, 1999 (see 64 FR 55667).

3. Records from the Public Hearings;

4. The State’s response to public

comments.

V. What Sources Does New York’s NOX

RACT Regulation Affect?

In each SIP revision, New York’s

Subpart 227–2 specifies that existing

major stationary sources must apply

RACT to control NOX emissions. New

York defines major stationary sources as

facilities with the potential to emit 25

tons per year NOX in the severe

nonattainment area—the New York City

metropolitan area and the lower Orange

County metropolitan area—and 100 tons

per year in the remainder of the State.

The New York City metropolitan area

includes the five counties of New York

City and the counties of Nassau, Suffolk,

Westchester and Rockland. The lower

Orange County metropolitan area

includes the towns of Blooming Grove,

Chester, Highlands, Monroe, Tuxedo,

Warwick, and Woodbury. New York

identifies these major source categories

as follows: very large boilers, large

boilers, mid-size boilers, small boilers,

combustion turbines, internal

combustion engines and other

combustion sources. Subpart 227–2

provides a definition of each source

category. These provisions are

consistent with the Act and EPA

guidance.

VI. What Exemptions Does New York’s

Regulation Allow?

Subpart 227–2 contains provisions

allowing equipment and source

operations the following four

exemptions:

1. Section 227–2.1 allows for

exemptions if EPA determines by May

15, 1994 that NOX reductions would

have no benefit to the net ozone air

quality. New York provides that source

owners, as well as the State, may

petition the EPA for an exemption. This

provision conforms to section 182(f) of

the Act. In its April 1999 submittal,

New York deleted this exemption

because the May 1994 deadline is past.

This deletion however, does not prevent

source owners from petitioning EPA

directly, at any time, since section 182(f)

of the Act allows for such petitions.

2. Section 227–2.3(a)(3) allows an

exemption from the requirements of

Subpart 227–2 to sources that provided

New York with a schedule to cease

operation by May 31, 1995. This

provision is acceptable to EPA since the

Act requires compliance by that date.

3. Section 227–2.4(f)(3) allows an

exemption to emergency power

generating units and other units that

operate during emergency situations

less than 500 hours per year. This

provision is consistent with EPA

guidelines and it also limits the number

of operating hours of exempted units.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 423

1EPA guidance provides that where the nonapproved RACT requirements concern sources

whose emissions represent less than 5% of the 1990

stationary source NOX inventory, excluding utility

boilers, it may be appropriate to issue a full

approval of the generic RACT regulation.

4. Section 227–2.4(g) exempts owners

from submitting a RACT determination

for combustion installations with NOX

emissions at a de minimis level. This

exemption is consistent with the Act

since New York’s de minimis level of

emissions are well below the 25 tons per

year major threshold limit.

VII. Were There Any Approvability

Issues With New York’s NOX RACT

Regulation and, if So, How Were They

Resolved?

The following three approvability

issues relate to Subpart 227–2 as

submitted to EPA on January 20, 1994.

There are no approvability issues with

the amendments to Subpart 227–2

which New York submitted on April 29,

1999. EPA has determined that the

revision has resolved all issues related

to the approval of Subpart 227–2.

A. Case-by-Case RACT Determinations

Provisions within Subpart 227–2

establish a procedure for a case-by-case

determination of what represents RACT

for an item of equipment or source

operation. This procedure is applicable

if the major NOX facility contains any

source operation or item of equipment

of a category not specifically regulated

in Subpart 227–2. Case-by-case RACT

determinations are contained in several

sections of Subpart 227–2 as follows:

227–2.4(a)(2), 227–2.4(b)(2), 227–

2.4(c)(1)(iii), 227–2.4(c)(1)(iv), 227–

2.4(e)(3), and 227–2.4(g). EPA refers to

these case-by-case provisions as generic

RACT provisions.

Subpart 227–2 requires that the

owners and/or operators of an affected

facility submit a RACT proposal if they

are not covered by specific emission

limitations. The New York RACT

proposal requires that owners/operators

include a technical and economic

feasibility analysis of the possible

alternative control measures. Subpart

227–2 provides for New York to

establish emission limits using a RACT

determination specific to the facility.

In addressing the approvability of

New York’s NOX RACT generic

provisions, EPA had the following two

concerns with New York’s January 1994

submittal: (1) Subpart 227–2 did not

require that the State submit approved

case-by-case RACT determinations as

SIP revisions for EPA approval, and (2)

the State did not document the

magnitude of NOX emissions associated

with the generic provisions and whether

they were significant or not. New York

needed to address both these concerns

in order for EPA to propose full

approval of generic provisions, instead

of conditional approval.

Regarding EPA’s first approvability

concern, section 110 of the Act requires

that a state adopt and submit, as SIP

revisions after public notice and the

opportunity for public comment,

enforceable emission limitations and

other control measures and techniques.

Although NOX RACT limitations and

requirements that are included in a

permit are federally enforceable, under

section 110 case-by-case RACT

determinations would not be federally

approvable unless Subpart 227–2

required that such RACT determinations

be submitted as SIP revisions for EPA

approval. New York satisfied section

110 of the Act when, in its April 1999

SIP revision, New York amended

Subpart 227–2 by adding section 227–

2.5(e), a new compliance option, that

requires the submittal of State approved

case-by-case RACT determinations to

EPA for approval as SIP revisions.

Although section 227–2.5(e) refers to all

but one of the State’s case-by-case RACT

determinations, New York has indicated

that this omission was a mistake and

that it intends to include reference to

section 227–2.4(c)(1)(iii), the generic

provision for mid-size boilers that use

alternative fuels, in its new amendments

to Subpart 227–2 which it anticipates

will be proposed in its next SIP revision

in the fall of 1999. New York’s amended

April 1999 SIP revision satisfies EPA’s

approvability concern with the State’s

January 1994 submittal.

EPA’s second concern relates to

whether EPA can approve Subpart 227–

2’s generic provisions. Generic

provisions are those portions of a

regulation which require the application

of RACT to an emission point, but the

degree of control is not specified in the

rule and is to be determined on a caseby-case basis taking technological and

economic factors into consideration. On

November 7, 1996, EPA issued a policy

memorandum providing additional

guidance for approving regulations

which contain these ‘‘generic

provisions.’’ (Sally Shaver

memorandum to EPA Division

Directors, ‘‘Approval Options for

Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet

the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement

and Certain NOX RACT Requirements’’).

EPA policy allows for the full

approval of state generic RACT rules

prior to EPA approval of all major

source RACT determinations provided

an analysis is completed that concludes

that the remaining source RACT

determinations involve a de minimis

level of NOX emissions. Such an

approval does not exempt the remaining

sources from RACT; rather it is a de

minimis deferral of the approval of

these case-by-case RACT limits. In a

letter dated April 27, 1999, New York

provided sufficient data for EPA to

evaluate the de minimis level of NOX

emissions from generic sources in the

State. Given the State’s data, EPA has

determined that four percent of the NOX

emissions subject to RACT controls

have either not yet been submitted to

EPA as SIP revisions or, if submitted,

have not yet been approved by EPA.1

EPA has determined this amount to be

de minimis. The four percent de

minimis level includes sixteen facilities

which New York is required to submit

as single source SIP revisions of which

seven have been submitted to EPA for

approval as SIP revisions. Therefore,

EPA has determined that New York’s

NOX RACT regulation conforms with

EPA’s policy regarding the approval of

generic RACT provisions or rules,

thereby allowing EPA to propose

approval of Subpart 227–2. Section 227–

2.5(e) requires New York to submit the

remaining case-by-case RACT

determinations to EPA for approval as

SIP revisions.

B. Certain Permitting Situation

The last sentence of section 227–

2.3(a)(1) allows a facility with a valid

certificate to operate or permit to

construct, i.e. permits, to continue

operating without implementing RACT

until a new permit is issued that

specifies the RACT requirements.

Therefore, section 227–2.3(a)(1)

potentially allows affected sources to

continue operation, under valid permits,

without implementing RACT by May

31, 1995 which would be a violation of

the Act.

In its letter dated April 27, 1999, New

York indicated that, to the best of their

knowledge, every source subject to

Subpart 227–2 has already received a

permit. Furthermore, in the same letter,

New York committed to include all

emission limits and requirements of

Subpart 227–2 in all applicable permits

within twelve months of EPA’s final

approval of Subpart 227–2.

If EPA had acted on Subpart 227–2

soon after receiving the January 1994

submittal, we would have proposed

disapproval because section 227–

2.3(a)(1) would potentially allow some

sources to operate in violation of the

Act. However, since the State has

confirmed in its recent letter that

essentially all permits have been issued

to all affected sources, a disapproval

would have no practical effect at this

424 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

time. Therefore, this issue is resolved to

EPA’s satisfaction.

C. Repowering Compliance Option

Section 227–2.5(c) allows a facility to

comply with Subpart 227–2 by opting to

repower. To do so, the owner/operator

must, by December 31, 1994, enter into

a federally enforceable permit wherein

it commits to permanently shut down

and dismantle the boiler prior to May

15, 1999 and wherein it commits to

repower. This option also requires NOX

emissions from the repowered unit to

meet specific emission limits that are

more stringent than the State’s

presumptive RACT limits.

We have determined that the State’s

repowering compliance option does not

fully satisfy EPA’s guidance on

repowering in that it does not require a

milestone schedule for repowering nor

does it require RACT measures during

the interim period between May 31,

1995 and the date the facility is due to

repower. These omissions are not

acceptable to EPA. However, since the

repowering option can no longer be

applied, resolution of the discrepancies

between EPA guidance and the State’s

regulation can have no practical effect

because it’s too late to enforce interim

RACT or milestone scheduling

requirements established by EPA

guidance. The State has advised EPA

that only one source in New York has

opted to repower. The State’s emission

limitations for this option meets EPA

requirements for repowering and will

therefore be enforceable when EPA

approves Subpart 227–2.

VIII. What Are EPA’s Conclusions?

EPA proposes approval of the two SIP

revisions that implement New York’s

NOX RACT Program throughout the

State, regardless of the nonattainment

status. The first SIP revision, dated

January 20, 1994, includes Subpart 227–

2, and revisions to Parts 200 and 201,

and Subpart 227–1. The second SIP

revision, dated April 29, 1999, includes

amendments to Subparts 227–2.

IX. Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

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.

Executive Order 13084

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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must 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 rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

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 proposed 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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

proposed 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. v. U.S. EPA,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 425

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under section 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 annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

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

proposed approval action does not

include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This federal action

approves 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.

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.

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

Dated: December 21, 1999.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 00–151 Filed 1–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300951; FRL–6393–1]

RIN 2070–AB78

Azoxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

revise the tolerances for residues of

azoxystrobin (methyl(E)-2–(2–(6–(2-

cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-

yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) and

its Z isomer (methyl(Z)-2–(2–(6–(2-

cyanophenoxy)pyrimidin-4-

yloxy)phenyl)-3-methoxyacrylate) in or

on pistachios at 0.02 part per million

(ppm) and tree nuts at 0.02 ppm. A final

rule establishing tolerances for residues

of azoxystrobin and its Z isomer in or

on pistachios at 0.01 ppm and tree nuts

at 0.01 ppm was published in the

Federal Register of March 17, 1999 (64

FR 13106). These were the tolerances

that Zeneca Ag Products had originally

proposed, in pesticide petition (PP)

7F4864. Immediately following

completion of this final rule, EPA

received telephone comments from two

parties indicating that they believed the

pistachio and tree nuts tolerances were

too low, considering the data submitted

in support of the tolerances and the use

directions on the label, and might lead

to adulterated commodities even when

the label use directions were accurately

followed. EPA agreed to revisit the

tolerances assigned to these

commodities, has concluded that the

commentors are correct in their

concerns, and here proposes to increase

the tolerances for residues of

azoxystrobin and its Z isomer in or on

pistachios to 0.02 ppm and in or on tree

nuts to 0.02 ppm.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket

control number OPP–300951, must be

received by EPA on or before March 6,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted by mail, electronically, or in

person. Please follow the detailed

instructions for each method as

provided in Unit I. of the

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.’’

To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is

imperative that you identify docket

control number OPP–300951 in the

subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Cynthia L. Giles-Parker,

Registration Division (7505C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 305–7740; and e-mail

address: giles-parker.cynthia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you are an agricultural

producer, food manufacturer, or

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially

affected categories and entities may

include, but are not limited to:

CategoriesNAICS

codes

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.’’

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look

up the entry for this document under

the ‘‘Federal Register--Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–300951. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, and other

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2 (CM #2), 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA,

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday