Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 62953

and 604. Alternatively, 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-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the 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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with any proposed or final rule that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs to state, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more. 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 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 Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by January 26, 1998. 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, Ozone, Volatile

organic compounds, Incorporation by

reference, Recordkeeping and reporting.

Dated: November 7, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 O—Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(139) to read as

follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(139) On September 8, 1997, the State

of Illinois submitted tightened volatile

organic material rules for cold cleaning

degreasing operations in the Chicago

and the Metro-East ozone nonattainment

areas.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois

Administrative Code, Title 35:

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions

Standards and Limitations for

Stationary Sources.

(A) Part 211: Definitions and General

Provisions, Subpart B: Definitions,

Section 211.1885, amended at 21 Ill.

7695, effective June 9, 1997.

(B) Part 218: Organic Material

Emission Standards and Limitations for

the Chicago Area, Subpart E: Solvent

Cleaning, Section 218.182, amended at

21 Ill. 7708, effective June 9, 1997.

(C) Part 219: Organic Material

Emissions Standards and Limitations for

the Metro-East Area, Subpart E: Solvent

Cleaning, Section 219.182, amended at

21 Ill. 7721, effective June 9, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–31139 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[FRL–5927–4]

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources; Standards of

Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral

Processing Plants; Clarification

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of policy; clarification.

SUMMARY: This action clarifies the

applicability of the New Source

Performance Standards for Nonmetallic

Mineral Processing Plants (40 CFR part

60, subpart OOO). This action is

necessary because of incorrect guidance

and preamble language regarding the

regulation’s applicability to affected

facilities in the nonmetallic mineral

processing industry. The April 1991

Regulatory and Inspection Manual for

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants

included the following incorrect

statement: ‘‘Subpart OOO affected

facilities begin with the first crushing or

grinding operation at the plant.’’ The

same incorrect statement was made in a

response to a comment in the preamble

to the June 9, 1997, Federal Register

document for the final amendments to

subpart OOO.

Section 60.670(a) of subpart OOO lists

the affected facilities in fixed or portable

nonmetallic mineral processing plants.

This list includes each crusher, grinding

mill, screening operation, bucket

elevator, belt conveyor, bagging

operation, storage bin, and enclosed

truck or railcar loading station. The

clear intent of the regulation is that all

facilities listed in section 60.670(a) are

subject to subpart OOO. While subpart

OOO affected operations typically have

crushers or grinding mills located at or

near the beginning of the nonmetallic

mineral processing line, this is not

always the case (e.g., some plants may

convey, screen or otherwise process

materials without first utilizing a

crusher located in the plant). Therefore,

with this document, the EPA is

clarifying that as long as crushing or

grinding occurs anywhere at a nonmetallic mineral processing plant, any

affected facility listed in § 60.670(a) is

subject to subpart OOO regardless of its

location within the plant. EPA expects

that plants that have not considered

facilities prior to the first crushing or

grinding operation as affected facilities,

will now ensure that those affected

facilities will meet all of the applicable

regulatory requirements.
62954 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Scott Throwe at (202) 564–7013,

Manufacturing, Energy, and

Transportation Division (2223A), U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, Washington, D.C.

20460.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

Scott A. Throwe,

Environmental Protection Specialist.

[FR Doc. 97–30950 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300576; FRL–5754–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Tefluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

tolerances for combined residues of

tefluthrin and its metabolite in or on

corn, grain, field and pop; corn, forage

and fodder, field, pop and sweet; and

corn, fresh (including sweet K and corn

with husk removed (CWHR)) at 0.06

parts per million (ppm). It also removes

time limitations for tolerances for

residues of tefluthrin on the same

commodities that expire on November

15, 1997. Zeneca Ag Products requested

these tolerances under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–170).

DATES: This regulation is effective

November 26, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before January 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300576],

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–

300576], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), 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 also be submitted electronically by

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

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300576]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Beth Edwards, Registration

Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5400, e-mail:

edwards.beth@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 1, 1989 (54 FR 5080), EPA

established time limited tolerances

under Section 408 of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346 a(d) and 348 for residues of

tefluthrin on corn, grain, field, and pop;

corn, forage and fodder, field and pop.

As additional crop tolerances were

established, they were also made timelimited. These tolerances expire on

November 15, 1997. Zeneca Ag

Products, on September 15, 1997,

requested that the time limitation for

tolerances established for residues of the

insecticide tefluthrin in the corn

commodities mentioned above be

removed based on environmental effects

data that they had submitted as a

condition of the registration. Zeneca Ag

Products also submitted a summary of

its petition as required under the

FFDCA as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 (Pub. L.

104–170).

In the Federal Register of September

25, 1997 (62 FR 50337) (FRL–5748–2),

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(e) announcing the filing of a

pesticide petitions (PP 7F3521 and

4F4406) for tolerances by Zeneca Ag

Products, P.O. Box 15458, Wilmington,

DE, 19850–5458. This notice included a

summary of the petition prepared by

Zeneca Ag Products, the registrant.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The petitions requested that 40 CFR

180.440 be amended by removing the

time-limitation for tolerances for

combined residues of the insecticide

and pyrethroid tefluthrin and its

metabolite (Z)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-

trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid,

in or on corn, grain, field and pop; corn,

forage and fodder, field, pop and sweet;

and corn, fresh (including sweet K and

corn with husk removed (CWHR)) at

0.06 part per million (ppm).

The basis for the time-limited

tolerances that expire November 15,

1997, was given in the Federal Register

of October 20, 1993 (58 FR 54094).

These time-limited tolerances were

predicated on the expiration of pesticide

product registrations that were made

conditional due to lack of certain

ecological and environmental effects

data. The rationale for using timelimited tolerances was to encourage

pesticide manufacturers to comply with

the conditions of registration in a timely

manner. There is no regulatory

requirement to make tolerances timelimited due to the conditional status of

a product registration under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), as amended. It is current

EPA policy to no longer establish time

limitations on tolerance(s) with

expiration dates if none of the

conditions of registration have any

bearing on human dietary risk. The

current petition action meets that

condition and thus the expiration dates

associated with specific crop tolerances

are being deleted.

I. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

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

FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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(b)(2)(A)(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(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and