Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43647

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to 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 approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by October 14, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: August 1, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.222 is being amended by

adding paragraph (b)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 52.222 Negative declarations.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(i) Nitric and Adipic Acid

Manufacturing Plants, Cement

Manufacturing Plants, Asphalt Batch

Plants, Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Plants, and Driers were submitted on

October 17, 1994 and adopted on

September 14, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21694 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–028–1028; FRL–5875–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final notice of the

Herculaneum, Missouri, nonattainment

area’s failure to attain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for lead.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

(CAA or the Act), the EPA has notified

the state of Missouri that the Doe RunHerculaneum nonattainment area failed

to attain the NAAQS for lead (Pb) by

June 30, 1995, as required under the

provisions of the Act and the Missouri

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

notification is based on the EPA’s

review of monitored air quality data for

compliance with the NAAQS for lead.

This notice is issued pursuant to the

EPA’s obligations under sections 179(c)

(1) and (2) of the CAA, which require

the EPA to make a determination of an

area’s attainment status following an

applicable attainment date, and publish

a notice in the Federal Register

indicating that such a determination has

been made. Pursuant to section

179(d)(1) of the CAA, Missouri is

required to submit a SIP revision,

meeting the applicable provisions of the

Act within one year of today’s finding.

DATES: This action is effective on

September 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Royan W. Teter at (913) 551–7609.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The EPA designated the area in the

vicinity of the Doe Run Company’s

primary lead smelter in Herculaneum,

Missouri, nonattainment with respect to

the NAAQS for lead on November 6,

1991 (56 FR 56694). This designation

became effective on January 6, 1992.

Missouri initially submitted a SIP

revision addressing the nonattainment

designation in July 1993. Supplements

were submitted in March and November

1994. The EPA approved Missouri’s

revised SIP on May 5, 1995 (60 FR

22274), establishing June 30, 1995, as

the date by which the area was to have

attained the NAAQS for lead. Ambient

air monitoring data, as shown below,

indicate that violations of the lead

NAAQS have continued to occur in

each calendar quarter subsequent to the

attainment date. On March 5, 1997, the

EPA published a proposed notice of

failure to attain the NAAQS for the

Herculaneum, Missouri, nonattainment

area (62 FR 10001). The proposed notice

detailed the responsibilities of the EPA

and the state of Missouri under the CAA

and provided the public with an

opportunity to comment on the

Agency’s determination that the

Herculaneum area has failed to attain

the standard.

Lead Ambient Air Quality Data—

Vicinity Of The DOE Run Primary

Smelter

Calendar Quarterly Values

(Micrograms of lead per cubic meter of

air (μg/m3))
43648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

HI—VOL MONITOR LOCATIONS

Date Dunklin

29–099–0014

Dunklin

29–099–0005

Golf Course

29–099–0008

North

29–099–0009

Ursaline

29–099–0010

Rutz

29–099–0011

Div. Manager

29–099–0013

Broad Street

29–099–0015

S H H H H H H H

1995:

3rd .............. 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.2 4.1

4th .............. 1.9 1.7 0.4 0.8 0.1 1.6 1.3 6.3

1996:

1st ............... 2.3 1.9 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.4 .8 2.3

2nd ............. 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 2.4 0.8 5.7

3rd .............. 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 4.0

4th .............. 1.7 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.9 1.6

Notes:

1 (S) = State monitor, (H) = Asarco monitor.

2 Italicized Quarterly Air Quality Values exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead; the NAAQS for lead is 1.5 μg/m3

and is the arithmetic mean of a series of daily (24-hour) values from hi-vol monitors measuring particulate matter, within a 3-month (calendar

quarter) period.

II. Response To Comments

The EPA received 334 letters

regarding the Doe Run Company and its

Herculaneum, Missouri, operations.

Those submitting comments included

25 businesses, 108 members of The Doe

Run Company’s mining and milling

division, and 201 other Doe Run

employees. None of the comments

pertained specifically to the EPA’s

determination that the Herculaneum

nonattainment area failed to attain the

NAAQS for lead by the prescribed date,

as discussed in the March 5, 1997,

proposed action. Nevertheless, the EPA

believes it is appropriate to outline the

major themes discussed by those who

submitted comments and provide a

response.

Comments: All commentors expressed

support for the Doe Run Company and

encouraged the EPA to work

cooperatively with the Company to

address the air quality issues within the

nonattainment area. Three distinct

rationales were presented. One group of

commentors cited the Company’s

success in reducing toxic chemical

releases to the environment while

participating in the EPA’s 33/50

Program. Another group of commentors

cited recent expenditures totaling

$900,000 as evidence of the Company’s

desire to fulfill the corporate philosophy

to ‘‘Make it better tomorrow than it is

today.’’ A third group acknowledged

Doe Run as an important contributor to

the economies of the state and the

nation, and expressed concern over any

actions that the EPA might take that

could place the company at an

economic disadvantage and jeopardize

the company’s survival.

Response: The EPA will work

cooperatively with the Doe Run

Company and the Missouri Department

of Natural Resources to develop a SIP

that meets the requirements of the CAA.

The EPA is an active participant in

discussions related to the development

of an appropriate emissions control

strategy. Recent discussions have

yielded positive results. Some data

collection activities are already

underway and a framework has been

developed for future activities. These

activities will facilitate a better

understanding of the sources of

emissions that are contributing to

violations of the NAAQS.

The Doe Run Company’s success in

the 33/50 Program and its latest efforts

to reduce lead emissions from the

Herculaneum smelter are commendable

actions; however, ambient lead

concentrations in the vicinity of the

smelter remain above the levels which

are protective of public health and

welfare. As such, the EPA is mandated

by the CAA to publish a notice in the

Federal Register, indicating the area’s

failure to attain the standard. The Act

then requires that within one year,

Missouri revise its SIP to address the

violations of the air quality standard.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 43649

One group of commentors expressed

concerns that the EPA’s actions may

jeopardize the economic future of the

Doe Run Company. While cost will be

a factor in determining the final control

plan, it is important to understand that

the EPA’s determination regarding the

Herculaneum area’s failure to attain the

NAAQS for lead involves only a factual

finding based on air quality

measurements. This determination does

not impose any specific requirements or

limitations on the Doe Run Company.

Any such requirements will be specified

in Missouri’s SIP.

III. Final action

Today’s action finalizes the EPA’s

determination that the Herculaneum,

Missouri, nonattainment area did not

attain the NAAQS for lead by June 30,

1990, as prescribed by CAA and

Missouri’s SIP. This action invokes

section 179(d) of the CAA which, under

the circumstances, requires Missouri to

submit a SIP revision meeting the

implementation and nonattainment plan

provisions of the Act, and any

additional measures which may be

reasonably prescribed in order to bring

the area into attainment with the

NAAQS. This SIP revision must be

submitted within one year of today’s

action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (EO) 12866

Under E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735

(October 4, 1993), the EPA is required

to determine whether regulatory actions

are significant and therefore should be

subject to the Office of Management and

Budget review, economic analysis, and

the requirements of the Executive Order.

The Executive Order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may

meet at least one of the four criteria

identified in section 3(f), including,

under paragraph (1), that the rule may

‘‘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.’’

The Agency has determined that

today’s action does not result in any of

the effects identified in 3(f). Under

sections 179(c) and 179(c)(2), a

determination that an area has failed to

attain the NAAQS for lead and the call

for revision of the relevant SIP are based

upon air quality considerations and

must occur by operation of law in light

of certain air quality conditions. They

do not, in-and-of-themselves, impose

any new requirements on any sectors of

the economy.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

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

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

As previously discussed, a

determination that an area has failed to

attain the lead NAAQS and its

associated SIP call, do not in-an-ofthemselves create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

today’s final action does not have a

significant impact on small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

must assess whether various actions

undertaken in association with

proposed or final regulations include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to the private sector, or to state, local or

tribal governments in the aggregate.

The EPA believes, as discussed above,

that its determination that the

Herculaneum, Missouri, area has failed

to attain the NAAQS for lead is a factual

determination based upon air quality

considerations and must occur by

operation of law and, hence, does not

impose any Federal intergovernmental

mandate, as defined in section 101 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act.

D. Small Business Regulatory Fairness

Act (SBREFA)

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory
43650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing this

rule and other required information to

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by October 14, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: August 4, 1997.

Michael J. Sanderson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21702 Filed 8–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300530; FRL–5738–3]

RIN 2070–AB78

Replicase Protein of Potato Leaf Roll

Virus and the Genetic Material

Necessary for Its production;

Exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the biological

pesticide Replicase Proteins of Potato

Leaf Roll Virus and the genetic material

necessary for its production in or on all

raw agricultural commodities. Monsanto

Company submitted a petition to EPA

under the Federal Food, Drug and

Cosmetic Act as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996

requesting the tolerance exemption.

This regulation eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level

for residues of Replicase Proteins of

Potato Leaf Roll Virus and the genetic

material necessary for its production.

DATES: This regulation is effective

August 15, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before October 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300530],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

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

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300530], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may be submitted electronically by

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

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be submitted as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket number [OPP–300530]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Linda Hollis, c/o Product Manager

(PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division (7501W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail: Rm. 5th fl., CS#1 2800 Crystal

Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–

8733, e-mail:

hollis.linda@epamail.epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of June 25, 1997 (62 FR

34283–34286)(FRL–5723–2), EPA issued

a notice pursuant to section 408(d), of

the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), announcing

the filing of a pesticide tolerance

petition by Monsanto Corporation, St.

Louis, MO. The notice contained a

summary of the petition prepared by the

petitioner and this summary contained

conclusions and arguments to support

its conclusion that the petition

complied with the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The

petition requested that 40 CFR part 180

be amended by establishing an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the biological

pest control agent Replicase Protein of

Potato Leaf Roll Virus and the genetic

material necessary for its production in

or on all raw agricultural commodities.

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the notice of

filing.

The data submitted in the petition

and other material have been evaluated.

The toxicology data requirements in

support of this exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance were satisfied

via data waivers from the open scientific

literature.

I. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish an

exemption from the requirement for a

tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide

chemical residue in or on a food) only

if EPA determines that the tolerance is

‘‘safe.’’ Section 408(c)(2)(ii) defines

‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(c)(2)(B) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and

children to the pesticide chemical

residue in establishing a tolerance and

to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result to

infants and children from aggregate

exposure to the pesticide chemical