Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 66007

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO47–1–6946 & CO–001–0020; FRL–5934–

1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to procedures

described at 54 FR 2214 (January 19,

1989), EPA has recently approved two

minor State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions for the State of Colorado. This

document lists the revisions EPA has

approved and revises the Code of

Federal Regulations to reflect those

approvals.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

December 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State SIP

revision requests and EPA’s letter

notices of approval are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations: Air Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466; and the Air Pollution

Control Division, Colorado Department

of Health, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive

South, Denver, Colorado 80222–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicki Stamper, 8P2–A, at the EPA

regional office listed above, (303) 312–

6445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

Region VIII has approved the following

minor SIP revision requests under

section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act:

State Pollutant Subject matter Date of submission Date of approval

Colorado ........................... PM–10 Aspen Element of the Colorado PM–10 SIP .............. Mar. 13, 1995 ............ Aug. 21, 1997.

Colorado ........................... PM–10 Pagosa Springs Element of the Colorado PM–10 SIP Aug. 2, 1996 .............. Aug. 21, 1997.

EPA has determined that these SIP

revisions comply with all applicable

requirements of the Act and EPA policy

and regulations concerning such

revisions. Due to the minor nature of

these revisions, EPA concluded that

conducting notice-and-comment

rulemaking prior to approving the

revisions would have been

‘‘unnecessary and contrary to the public

interest’’ and, hence, was not required

by the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

U.S.C. 553(b). Each of these SIP

approvals became final and effective on

the date of EPA approval as listed in the

chart above.

I. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., 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, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic 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.

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, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 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

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action 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 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 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 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 February 17,

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 must 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, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 21, 1997.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

Title 40, chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:
66008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G—Colorado

2. Section 52.332 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph

(b)(1), redesignating paragraph (e) as

paragraph (e)(1), and adding paragraphs

(b)(2) and (e)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.332 Moderate PM–10 nonattainment

area plans.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) On August 2, 1996, the Governor

of Colorado submitted minor revisions

to the Pagosa Springs Element of the

Colorado PM–10 SIP.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) On March 13, 1995, the Governor

of Colorado submitted minor revisions

to the Aspen Element of the Colorado

PM–10 SIP.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–32930 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300585; FRL 5756–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Ethalfluralin; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

ethalfluralin in or on canola seed. This

action is in response to EPA allowing

issuance of crisis emergency exemptions

under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act authorizing use of the pesticide on

canola in Montana and North Dakota.

This regulation establishes a maximum

permissible level for residues of

ethalfluralin in this food commodity

pursuant to section 408(l)(6) of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. The tolerance

will expire and is revoked on October

31, 1998.

DATES: This regulation is effective

December 17, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before February 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300585],

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–

300585], 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 5.1/6.1 or

ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300585]. 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: Andrea Beard, 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) 308–9356; e-mail:

beard.andrea@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

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

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing

a tolerance for residues of the herbicide

ethalfluralin, in or on canola seed at

0.05 part per million (ppm). This

tolerance will expire and is revoked on

October 31, 1998. EPA will publish a

document in the Federal Register to

remove the revoked tolerance from the

Code of Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the Federal Food, Drug,

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

301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. The FQPA

amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

These activities are described below and

discussed in greater detail in the final

rule establishing the time-limited

tolerance associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum (61 FR 58135), November 13,

1996 (FRL 5572–9).

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

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

residue. . . .’’

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA

to exempt any Federal or State agency

from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA

determines that ‘‘emergency conditions

exist which require such exemption.’’

This provision was not amended by

FQPA. EPA has established regulations

governing such emergency exemptions

in 40 CFR part 166.

Section 408(l)(6) of the 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. Such

tolerances can be established without