24826 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

Dated: April 18, 1997.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 TT—Utah

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(37) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(37) On November 20, 1996, the

Governor of Utah submitted a revision

to the Utah State Implementation Plan.

The submittal included a new Utah

regulation which incorporates by

reference the Federal new source

performance standards in 40 CFR part

60, as in effect on March 12, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Utah Air Conservation

Regulations, R307–18–1, ‘‘Standards of

Performance for New Stationary Sources

(NSPS),’’ effective September 9, 1996,

printed October 19, 1996.

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413,

7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602.

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. In § 60.4(c), the table for

‘‘Delegation Status of New Source

Performance Standards [(NSPS) for

Region VIII]’’ is amended by adding to

the end of the table an entry for

‘‘WWW—Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills’’ to read as follows:

§ 60.4 Address.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

DELEGATION STATUS OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

[(NSPS) for Region VIII]

SUBPART CO MT1 ND1 SD1 UT1 WY

* * * * * * *

WWW Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ........................................................................ (*)

1 Indicates approval of New Source Performance Standards as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

(*)Indicates approval of State regulations.

[FR Doc. 97–11913 Filed 5–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[PA036–4060; FRL–5819–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Redesignation,

Maintenance Plan, and Emissions

Inventories for Reading; Ozone

Redesignations Policy Change

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a

redesignation request for the Reading,

Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area,

and State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The

revisions consist of a maintenance plan

and 1990 base year inventories for the

Reading area (Berks County,

Pennsylvania). In addition, for the

purposes of redesignation, EPA is

proposing to approve Pennsylvania’s

legislative authority to adopt and

implement a vehicle inspection and

maintenance program. These actions are

being taken under sections 107 and 110

of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, EPA

is changing its policy on redesignation

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas in the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR). The policy change makes

redesignation requirements for areas in

the OTR consistent with requirements

for areas outside the OTR by

interpreting meeting the requirements

under section 184 of the Clean Air Act

as not being a prerequisite for the

purpose of redesignation. The policy

does not affect obligations required

under other sections of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on June 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria A. Pino, (215) 566–2181, at the

EPA Region III office address listed

above, or via e-mail at

pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53174), EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The

NPR proposed approval of the

redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and 1990 volatile organic

compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen

(NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) base

year inventories for the Reading area,

contingent upon Pennsylvania’s

correction of all deficiencies contained

in the maintenance plan and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 24827

inventories. In that same Federal

Register document, EPA also proposed,

in the alternative, to disapprove the

redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and base year inventories for the

Reading area, if Pennsylvania does not

correct the deficiencies. In addition, for

the purposes of redesignation, EPA

proposed approval of Pennsylvania’s

legislative authority to adopt and

implement a vehicle inspection and

maintenance program. Finally, EPA

proposed a change in its policy on

redesignation requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas in the OTR.

Public comments were received on

the Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR), and are addressed below in the

Response to Comments section of this

document.

Background

Pennsylvania formally requested that

EPA redesignate the Reading area on

November 12, 1993. Pennsylvania

submitted the maintenance plan and

1990 VOC, NOX, and CO base year

inventories for the Reading ozone

nonattainment area as formal SIP

revisions on November 12, 1993.

Pennsylvania amended the maintenance

plan on January 13, 1994 and May 12,

1995. Most recently, Pennsylvania

submitted a revised maintenance plan

and revised inventories on January 28,

1997.

On October 10, 1996, EPA published

a proposed approval of the

redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and inventories, contingent upon

Pennsylvania correcting deficiencies

identified in its submittals (61 FR

53174). On January 28, 1997,

Pennsylvania submitted a maintenance

plan and 1990 base year inventories for

the Reading area, which completely

supersede the previous submittals and

address the requirements of EPA’s

proposed approval.

As stated in EPA’s proposed approval

of the Reading area redesignation

request, maintenance plan, and 1990

base year inventories (61 FR 53174), in

order to correct the deficiencies that

exist in the redesignation request,

maintenance plan, and 1990 base year

emission inventories, Pennsylvania was

required to submit the following to EPA

by February 3, 1997:

(1) Adequate technical support to

justify the projected emission

inventories (2007 and 2004), including

growth factors (not surrogates), sample

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources, and mobile source emissions

modeling sample runs;

(2) Technical support to justify the

1990 base year emission inventories

submitted in the redesignation request.

This support must include sample

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources, a list of all point sources, and

mobile source emissions modeling;

(3) Complete and approvable

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) SIP revisions for all applicable

sources (all VOC and NOX sources with

the potential to emit 100 tons per year

(TPY) or more in the Reading area);

(4) A declaration that all required

RACTs have been submitted; and

(5) SIP revisions to the Reading area

maintenance plan so that it provides

adequate contingency measures. The

plan must contain a list of measures to

be adopted and a schedule and

procedures for adoption and

implementation. The plan must also

identify specific triggers used to

determine when the contingency

measures need to be implemented and

a schedule for implementation of the

contingencies in the event that they are

implemented. The list of contingency

measures must include a basic vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program, in the event that enhanced I/

M requirement under section 184 is not

implemented. The plan must contain a

schedule for implementation of a basic

I/M program that complies with 40 CFR

51.372(c)(4). This schedule will be

triggered when Pennsylvania chooses to

implement basic I/M as a contingency

measure.

EPA’s Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s

January 28, 1997 SIP Submittal

EPA has determined that

Pennsylvania’s January 28, 1997 SIP

submittal has adequately addressed the

five requirements listed above, and

thereby corrected all deficiencies that

previously existed in Pennsylvania’s

maintenance plan and 1990 VOC, NOX,

and CO inventories for the Reading

ozone nonattainment area. A brief

description of how Pennsylvania’s

submittal addresses the five

requirements is provided below.

(1) Projected Emission Inventories

Pennsylvania’s January 28, 1997

revision to the maintenance plan for the

Reading area includes adequate

technical support to justify the projected

emission inventories (2007 and 2004),

including growth factors (not

surrogates), sample calculations for

point, area, and mobile sources, and

mobile source emissions modeling

sample runs.

(2) 1990 Base Year Emission Inventories

Pennsylvania’s revised maintenance

plan for the Reading area contains

adequate technical support to justify the

1990 base year emission inventories for

the Reading area. The support materials

include sample calculations for point,

area, and mobile sources, a list of all

point sources, and mobile source

emissions modeling.

Pennsylvania developed an

attainment emissions inventory, for the

year 1992, to identify the level of

emissions sufficient to achieve the

ozone standard. The revised

maintenance plan contains

comprehensive inventories for the 1990

base year, as well as the years 1992,

2004 and 2007, prepared according to

EPA guidance for ozone precursors,

VOCs, NOX, and CO emissions to

demonstrate attainment and

maintenance. The inventories include

area, stationary, non-road mobile and

mobile sources. The 1992 inventory is

considered representative of attainment

conditions because the standard was not

violated during 1992, and because that

year was one of the three years upon

which the attainment demonstration

was based. The plan includes a

demonstration that emissions will

remain below the 1992 attainment year

levels for a 10 year period (2007) and

provides an interim-year inventory, as

required by EPA guidance, for the year

2004. Pennsylvania has demonstrated

that emissions for ozone precursors

through the year 2007 will remain

below the 1992 attainment year levels

because of permanent and enforceable

measures, while allowing for growth in

population and vehicle miles traveled

(VMT).

The following table summarizes the

average peak ozone season weekday

VOC, NOX, and CO emissions for the

major anthropogenic source categories

for the 1990 base year inventory, the

1992 attainment year inventory, and the

projected 2004 and 2007 inventories for

the Reading area.

Emissions (tons per day) 1990 1992 2004 2007

VOCs

Point sources .................................................................................................................................................... 12.41 12.01 11.73 12.03

Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 25.96 25.13 21.47 20.96
24828 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Emissions (tons per day) 1990 1992 2004 2007

Mobile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 25.29 22.59 19.36 19.00

Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 63.66 59.73 52.56 51.99

NOX

Point sources .................................................................................................................................................... 25.60 25.20 21.65 22.40

Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 2.63 2.65 2.78 2.82

Mobile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 29.54 28.78 25.57 25.43

Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 57.77 56.63 50.00 50.65

CO

Point sources .................................................................................................................................................... 9.12 8.55 7.83 7.71

Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 2.65 2.66 2.74 2.76

Mobile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 252.74 225.22 165.52 166.20

Total ........................................................................................................................................................... 264.51 236.43 176.09 176.67

(3) RACT

Pennsylvania has submitted RACT

SIP revisions for all major sources

subject to RACT in the Reading area. At

the time of EPA’s proposed approval, on

October 10, 1996, EPA had identified

four sources for which Pennsylvania

was required to submit RACT SIPs.

Subsequently, EPA identified a fifth

source as being subject to RACT.

However, Pennsylvania’s revision to the

Reading area maintenance plan

indicates that two of these sources are

subject to federally enforceable state

operating permit conditions that limit

their potential emissions to less than

100 tons per year NOX. Therefore, EPA

considers these sources to be no longer

subject to RACT.

On March 20, 1997, Pennsylvania

withdrew the NOX portion of its RACT

SIP revision for Lucent Technologies

(AT&T)—Reading. This source is subject

to federally enforceable state operating

permit conditions that limit its potential

emissions to less than 100 tons per year

NOX. Therefore, EPA considers this

source to be subject to VOC RACT, but

not NOX RACT.

Pennsylvania submitted RACT SIP

revisions for the newly identified source

on January 21, 1997. Pennsylvania

submitted RACT SIP revisions for the

remaining two RACT sources on January

28, 1997.

Furthermore, as shown in the

following tables, EPA has approved all

RACT SIPs for the Reading area. Thus,

Pennsylvania has fulfilled its moderate

area RACT obligation under section 182

for the Reading area.

SOURCE Pennsylvania

submittal date

EPA approval

signature

EPA approval

publication

VOC RACT

W.R. Grace and Co.—FORMPAC Div ........................................................................................... 9/20/95 4/19/96 5/16/96

62 FR 24706

Glidden Co.—Reading .................................................................................................................... 6/10/96 4/1/97 4/18/97

Garden State Tanning, Inc.—Fleetwood ........................................................................................ 8/1/95 4/1/97 4/18/97

Brentwood Industries, Inc.—Reading ............................................................................................. 5/2/96 3/31/97 4/18/97

Metropolitan Edison Co. (MetEd)—Titus ........................................................................................ 3/27/95 3/31/97 4/18/97

Lucent Technologies (AT&T)—Reading ......................................................................................... 8/1/95 4/1/97 4/18/97

Morgan Corp.—Morgantown .......................................................................................................... 11/15/95 3/31/97 4/18/97

Quaker Maid (Schrock Cabinet Group) .......................................................................................... 5/2/96 3/31/97 4/18/97

North American Fluoropolymers Co. .............................................................................................. 3/21/96 3/31/97 4/18/97

Maier’s Bakery—Reading ............................................................................................................... 11/15/95 3/31/97 4/18/97

NOX RACT

Metropolitan Edison Co (MetEd)—Titus ......................................................................................... 3/27/95 3/31/97 4/18/97

Allentown Cement Co, Inc.—Evansville ......................................................................................... 11/15/95 3/31/97 4/18/97

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.—Bechtelsville ........................................................................ 1/28/97 3/31/97 4/18/97

Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.—Bernville ............................................................................... 2/3/97 3/31/97 4/18/97

Carpenter Technology Corp.—Reading ......................................................................................... 1/21/97 3/31/97 4/18/97

Carpenter Technology Corp.—Reading ......................................................................................... 1/21/97 3/31/97 4/18/97

(4) RACT Declaration

In the cover letter for Pennsylvania’s

January 28, 1997 submittal, which

transmitted amendments to its

maintenance plan and 1990 base year

inventories for the Reading area,

Pennsylvania stated that all required

RACTs for the Reading area ‘‘will be

submitted by February 3, 1997.’’ In fact,

all required RACT SIPs were submitted

to EPA as SIP revisions by January 28,

1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 24829

(5) Contingency Measures

Pennsylvania has revised the

maintenance plan for the Reading area

to include appropriate triggers for its

contingency measures. When the

contingency plan is triggered,

Pennsylvania has committed to adopt

within one year, or as expeditiously as

practicable, one or more contingency

measures. The contingency measures

will be triggered if the area experiences

a violation of the ozone standard. In

addition, Pennsylvania will develop a

periodic inventory every 3 years. If a

periodic inventory exceeds the

attainment year inventory (1992) by 10

percent or more, Pennsylvania will

evaluate the control measures to see if

any contingency measure should be

implemented. Finally, a contingency

measure can be triggered if the Reading

area experiences an exceedance of the

ozone standard.

Pennsylvania’s revised maintenance

plan for the Reading area includes, as a

contingency measure, the low enhanced

I/M program that Pennsylvania

submitted to EPA on March 22, 1996.

Pennsylvania submitted this low

enhanced program under the November

28, 1995 National Highway System

Designation Act (NHSDA). EPA’s final

conditional interim approval of the

Pennsylvania’s I/M program was

published in the Federal Register on

January 28, 1997 (62 FR 4004).

Pennsylvania estimates that this

program will result in a VOC emission

reduction of 1.5 tons per day and a NOX

emission reduction of 0.2 tons per day

in the Reading area. It should be noted

that, although it has been listed as a

contingency measure, Pennsylvania

intends to fully implement this low

enhanced program by November 15,

1999. EPA considers the actual

implementation of low enhanced I/M in

the Reading area to be environmentally

better than a contingency measure that

may be implemented, if the contingency

plan is triggered.

Pennsylvania’s revised maintenance

plan for the Reading area includes, as a

second contingency measure, improved

rule effectiveness. In the contingency

plan, Pennsylvania has included a list of

rule effectiveness matrix activities that

Pennsylvania intends to implement to

achieve enhance rule compliance, and a

schedule for implementation of these

activities. Facilities that fall under the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

codes 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 51 will be

effected by this contingency measure,

should it be triggered. Pennsylvania

estimates that this measure, if triggered,

would result in a VOC emission

reduction of 1.05 tons per day in the

Reading area.

Other specific provisions of the

maintenance plan and 1990 base year

inventories, and the rationale for EPA’s

action are explained in the NPR and the

technical support documents that EPA

prepared for this action, and will not be

restated here.

Response to Comments

EPA received four comment letters on

its proposed approval and proposed

disapproval of the Reading area

redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and 1990 base year inventories.

Comments were received from (1) The

Berks County Planning Commission

(BCPC), (2) The Berks County Board of

Commissioners (BCBC) and Berks

County Industrial Development

Authority (BCIDA), (3) The

Pennsylvania Chemical Industry

Council (PCIC), and (4) The Clean Air

Council (CAC).

Comment #1

BCPC, BCBC, BCIDA, and PCIC

support EPA’s proposed approval and

state that the Commonwealth is in the

process of meeting all applicable

redesignation criteria for the Reading

area. They also assert that the fact that

the Reading area has met the ozone

standard since 1991 should be the

overriding consideration for EPA. BCPC,

BCBC, and BCIDA contend that the

remaining four redesignation criteria

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean

Air Act (the Act) are ‘‘secondary

requirements.’’ They go on to claim that

delaying the redesignation of the

Reading area ‘‘will prohibit economic

growth and development in the Berks

County Region.’’

EPA Response

Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act,

all five of the following criteria must be

met for an ozone nonattainment area to

be redesignated to attainment:

1. The area must meet the ozone

NAAQS.

2. The area must meet applicable

requirements of section 110 and Part D

of the Act.

3. The area must have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(k) of

the Act.

4. The area must show that its

experienced improvement in air quality

is due to permanent and enforceable

measures.

5. The area must have a fully

approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the Act, including

contingency measures.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth

criteria are as important as the first.

These four criteria are needed to assure

that any improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

measures, and not year-to-year

fluctuations in emissions and/or

meteorological conditions. They also

ensure that the improvement in air

quality will be maintained, and any

future violations of the ozone standard

will be addressed as expeditiously as

possible. EPA cannot approve a

redesignation request unless all five

criteria are met. As stated above, EPA

believes that the Reading area has now

met all five criteria. Therefore, EPA is

approving the Commonwealth’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Reading area.

Comment #2

BCPC, BCBC, and BCIDA support

EPA’s proposed policy change that

would make redesignation requirements

for areas in the OTR consistent with

requirements for areas outside the OTR

by interpreting meeting the

requirements under section 184 of the

Act as not being a prerequisite for the

purpose of redesignation.

EPA Response

EPA agrees with this comment, for the

reasons stated in its proposal and in the

further responses to comments set forth

below. In addition, EPA notes that, at

this time, Pennsylvania has made

submissions addressing all of its section

184 requirements for the Reading area,

and has received or is awaiting their

approval by EPA.

As an alternative ground for

approving the Reading area

redesignation request, EPA has

concluded that, even if the section 184

requirements were somehow deemed

‘‘applicable’’ requirements for purposes

of section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA is

empowered to create a de minimis

exception for them. Because the Reading

area does not rely upon them to

demonstrate attainment and

maintenance, and because these

requirements remain in effect after

redesignation, EPA has determined that

requiring full approval of them prior to

redesignation would be of trivial

environmental significance. Under

Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323,

360–61 (D.C. Cir. 1979), EPA may

establish de minimis exceptions to

statutory requirements where the

application of the statutory

requirements would be of trivial or no

value environmentally. Here, EPA finds

that there is little or no benefit to

insisting that the section 184

requirements be met prior to

redesignation, since they remain in

force regardless of the area’s
24830 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

redesignation status, and are unrelated

to it.

EPA notes, moreover, that the Reading

area has already fulfilled most of its

obligations under section 184. It has

satisfied the RACT requirements. Only

two limited aspects of Reading’s section

184 requirements are subject to further

undertakings; an element of its new

source review (NSR) program, and,

certain conditions related to its low

enhanced I/M program. With respect to

I/M, Pennsylvania has obtained final

conditional interim approval of its low

enhanced I/M program. With respect to

NSR, on April 22, 1997, the Regional

Administrator of EPA, Region III signed

a proposed limited approval of

Pennsylvania’s February 4, 1994 NSR

submittal. EPA has proposed to grant

limited approval of this SIP revision

because it strengthens the current SIP’s

NSR requirements, and because it limits

the use of prior shutdown credits in a

manner that is consistent with EPA’s

NSR reform rulemaking, which was

proposed for approval in the July 23,

1996 Federal Register. See 61 FR 38249.

This NSR reform rulemaking proposes

to lift the current prohibition on the use

of prior shutdown credits. The

Pennsylvania SIP revision limits, but

does not prohibit the use of prior

shutdown credits. Current NSR program

requirements prohibit the use of prior

shutdown credits. However, it is

important to note that Pennsylvania’s

existing NSR SIP rule also does not

prohibit the use of prior shutdown

credits, and that the Pennsylvania SIP

revision is generally consistent with

EPA’s proposed NSR reform

rulemaking. Therefore, EPA has

proposed limited approval of this SIP

revision based upon the fact that it

strengthens the existing SIP’s NSR

requirements, and upon its conformance

with EPA’s proposed NSR reform

rulemaking. When EPA promulgates the

NSR reform rule, it will assess

Pennsylvania’s SIP for conformance

with that promulgated version.

Comment #3

CAC asserts that EPA’s proposed

policy change that would interpret

meeting the requirements under section

184 of the Act as not being a

prerequisite for the purpose of

redesignation ‘‘would flatly contravene

section 107(d)(3)(E),’’ which requires an

area to meet all applicable section 110

and part D requirements before it can be

eligible for redesignation. CAC further

claims that ‘‘EPA lacks discretion to

pick and choose among those

requirements, imposing some and

dispensing with others.’’ CAC maintains

that ‘‘EPA’s proposed policy

contravenes the Act and must not be

adopted,’’ and goes on to state that even

if the Commonwealth corrects all the

deficiencies listed in EPA’s proposed

approval of the Reading redesignation

request, EPA must still deny the

redesignation request, ‘‘because the

Reading area lacks several SIP elements

required by Part D and § 110, including

those mandated by §§ 184, 172(c)(9),

182(b)(1)(A)(I), and 176(c).’’

EPA Response

As stated in EPA’s proposal for this

policy change, EPA believes it is

reasonable and appropriate to interpret

the section 184 requirements as not

being applicable requirements for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request, because the requirement to

submit these SIP revisions continues to

apply to areas in the OTR after

redesignation to attainment, and

because these control measures are

region-wide requirements and do not

apply to the Reading area by virtue of

the area’s nonattainment designation.

With respect to its conclusion that

section 184 requirements are

inapplicable for purposes of evaluating

a redesignation request, EPA has

construed applicable requirements as

being those that must be satisfied prior

to redesignation because they will not

remain in force after redesignation, and

whose purpose is related to assuring

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS in the area seeking

redesignation. EPA has in the past

interpreted ‘‘applicable requirements’’

in light of the purposes of the

redesignation requirement. The

requirements that are applicable for

purposes of redesignation are those

whose purpose is to assure attainment

and maintenance of the NAAQS for the

area being redesignated. Section 184

measures are region-wide requirements

that do not apply to the Reading area by

virtue of its designation. Their purpose

is to reduce regional emissions in the

OTR, not to assure attainment and

maintenance in the area being

redesignated.

In addition, the section 184

requirements remain applicable after

redesignation, constituting the extra

measures that all areas in the OTR, both

attainment and nonattainment, must

implement to reduce the possibility of

transport to areas outside of the area

being redesignated. EPA has determined

that areas in the OTR, such as the

Reading area, may be redesignated

whether or not they have met the

section 184 requirements at the time of

redesignation, since they remain

obligated to satisfy them without regard

to their designation. Here, the Reading

area has met all applicable requirements

for redesignation for areas not in the

OTR. For areas in the OTR, section 184

requirements will remain in effect after

redesignation, and thus redesignation

will not have operated to relieve the

Reading area of the obligation to meet

them. For that reason, and for the

reasons set forth in its proposal EPA has

determined that the section 184

requirements are not applicable

requirements for the purpose of

redesignation.

The rationale for this interpretation is

in part analogous to that relied upon

and unchallenged with respect to

conformity requirements and oxyfuels.

See Cleveland Notice of Final

Rulemaking 61 FR 20467–20468 (May 7,

1996) and Tampa, Notice of Final

Rulemaking, 60 FR 62748, 62741

(December 7, 1995). Because

redesignation will not allow these

requirements to be evaded, it does not

undermine their enforcement or the

goals of redesignation.

Moreover, as EPA has set forth above,

in its response to Comment #2, even if

the section 184 requirements were

interpreted to be applicable, EPA is

empowered to create an exception to

these requirements based upon an

analysis that shows that they are of de

minimis value as a prerequisite to

redesignation. This constitutes a

separate and independent ground for

concluding that the Reading area is

entitled to approval of its request for

redesignation.

In reaching its conclusions, EPA is

not ‘‘picking and choosing’’ among

requirements, but making principled

interpretations of what constitutes an

applicable requirement or valid

exception to a requirement, based upon

a reading of the statute.

With respect to EPA’s reliance on the

determination of attainment in finding

that the Reading area has met the

requirements for redesignation, the

grounds for EPA’s interpretation of

section 182(b)(l)(A)(I) and 172(c)(9)

interpretations were set forth in EPA’s

May 10, 1995 policy and in the Federal

Register notices approving the

redesignation request of Cleveland,

Ohio 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) and

Salt Lake City, Utah. The policy was

upheld in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 95–

9541 (10th Cir. 1996).

Comment #4

CAC challenges EPA’s rationale for its

proposed redesignation policy change.

In EPA’s proposal, the Agency stated

that the State remains obligated to adopt

section 184 requirements even after

redesignation, and would risk sanctions

for failure to do so. CAC claims that the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 24831

threat of sanctions has not improved the

timeliness or quality of SIP revisions

submitted by states in the OTR,

including Pennsylvania, and that ‘‘EPA

has seldom followed through’’ on its

threat to impose sanctions in these

areas.

EPA Response

EPA contends that a state’s obligation

under the Act to submit all section 184

requirements, established in the Act to

address long-range transport of ozone

and ozone precursors, coupled with the

threat of sanctions for non-submittal or

inadequate submittal, is sufficient to

ensure that states will fulfill all

requirements, even after an area has

been redesignated. This is evidenced in

the Reading area, where Pennsylvania is

in the process of addressing all

applicable section 184 requirements that

have due dates prior to Pennsylvania’s

formal redesignation request for the

Reading area.

The argument that redesignation

provides the incentive for fulfilling

these requirements, while the threat of

sanctions is not enough of a

disincentive, is not persuasive. First, the

purpose of redesignation is not to

enforce any particular set of

requirements, but rather to assure

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS for the area being redesignated.

Second, to the extent that, as a sideeffect, redesignation provides an

ancillary incentive to meet

requirements, that incentive is

proportionately reduced where an area

remains obligated to meet these

requirements. As we have noted, the

Reading area remains obligated to fulfill

the section 184 requirements after

redesignation or faces the threat of

sanctions or a SIP call.

The commenter has not shown that

obtaining approval for redesignation

would result in areas shirking their

section 184 responsibilities. As set forth

above, Pennsylvania has demonstrated

that it does not take these requirements

lightly. Pennsylvania has submitted its

NSR rules, which have received a

limited approval from EPA, pending

final issuance of EPA’s proposed

revision of its NSR rules. Pennsylvania

has also received conditional interim

approval for its enhanced I/M program.

Pennsylvania has made its section 184

submissions for areas in the

commonwealth designated attainment,

as well as those seeking redesignation,

thereby demonstrating its willingness to

comply with these requirements even in

the absence of any incentive to

redesignate. Under these circumstances,

disapproving the redesignation request

would yield no discernible

environmental benefit. Any such benefit

would be dependent upon the

speculation that denial of redesignation

might somehow secure compliance with

requirements that have already been

substantially completed, and which are

enforceable by other means.

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT): As stated above,

Pennsylvania has fulfilled its moderate

area RACT obligation under section 182

for the Reading area by submitting

complete and approvable RACT SIPs for

all sources of VOC and NOX with the

potential to emit 100 tons per year

(TPY) or greater in the area. EPA has

approved all of these RACT submittals.

Under section 184, Pennsylvania is also

obligated to submit RACT SIP revisions

for all VOC sources with the potential

to emit between 50 and 100 TPY. Only

one such source exists in the Reading

area, Birchcraft Industries, Inc. This

source had the potential to emit 79.2

TPY VOC. However, this source is

subject to federally enforceable state

operating permit conditions that limit

its potential emissions to less than 50

TPY VOC. EPA SIP approved this limit

on May 16, 1996 (62 FR 24706).

Therefore, EPA considers this source to

be no longer subject to RACT. Thus,

Pennsylvania has fulfilled its OTR

RACT obligation under section 184.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

(I/M): On March 22, 1996, Pennsylvania

submitted a low enhanced I/M program

under the November 28, 1995 NHSDA.

EPA’s final conditional interim approval

of the Pennsylvania’s I/M program was

published in the January 28, 1997

Federal Register (62 FR 4004).

Pennsylvania intends to fully

implement this low enhanced program

by November 15, 1999.

New Source Review (NSR): On

February 4, 1994, Pennsylvania

submitted its final NSR regulations to

EPA. EPA determined that the submittal

was complete on February 28, 1994. On

April 22, 1997, EPA’s proposed limited

approval of Pennsylvania’s NSR

submittal was signed by the Regional

Administrator.

Comment #5

CAC contends that EPA’s proposed

policy change ‘‘ignores the rationale

offered in the General Preamble’’ to

Title I of the Clean Air Act, which states

that an area must meet the applicable

requirements of sections 182, 184, and

185 in order to be redesignated (57 FR

13564, April 16, 1992). The General

Preamble goes on to say that

‘‘contingency measures of the

maintenance plan will require, at a

minimum, that the measures in place

just before redesignation be

implemented if future violations occur.’’

EPA Response

As stated in EPA’s proposal for this

redesignation policy change, EPA is not

waiving the section 184 OTR

requirements. These requirements

remain in place, even after

redesignation to attainment. Therefore,

unlike contingency measures that would

only be adopted if triggered,

redesignated areas in the OTR continue

to be obligated to fulfill these OTR

requirements, regardless of attainment

designation or maintenance of the

standard. Furthermore, EPA’s proposed

approval of the Reading area’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan required Pennsylvania to include I/

M as a contingency measure. As stated

above, not only did Pennsylvania

include I/M in its contingency plan for

the Reading area, but it also intends to

fully implement its low enhanced

program I/M by 1999.

The commenter’s assertion that the

new policy ‘‘ignores the rationale

offered in the General Preamble’’ that it

is ‘‘particularly important’’ to meet the

section 182, 184 and 185 requirements

prior to redesignation does not

withstand scrutiny, since that rationale

is not applicable to the circumstances

presented by the Reading redesignation.

The General Preamble stated that it

would be important to meet these

requirements so that they would be in

place and therefore required to be

included in the maintenance plan as

contingency measures ‘‘if future

violations occur’’. But this rationale has

no bearing on the situation of an OTR

state such as Pennsylvania, where the

section 184 requirements will remain

fully applicable, and where they will

not be relegated to the role of

contingency measures after

redesignation. Thus the justification in

the General Preamble and cited by the

commenters for requiring the section

184 measures to be in place prior to

redesignation is simply inapposite with

respect to the Reading area.

Comment #6

CAC charges that EPA’s proposed

redesignation policy change ‘‘works at

cross-purposes with efforts to control

long-range transport problems, the very

problem that underlies the OTR and the

requirements applicable there.’’

EPA Response

As stated in EPA’s proposal of this

policy change, EPA is not waiving the

section 184 requirement, established in

the Act to address long-range transport

of ozone and ozone precursors. Even
24832 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

after redesignation to attainment, a

state’s obligation to submit SIP revisions

for the section 184 requirements

continues to apply to areas in the OTR.

EPA’s new policy is not at ‘‘crosspurposes’’ with efforts to control

transport. As stated above, there is no

indication that allowing compliance

with the section 184 requirements after

redesignation would result in frustrating

the satisfaction of those requirements. In

the case of the Reading area,

Pennsylvania has made its submissions

with respect to RACT, NSR, and I/M.

These programs have received either

full, conditional, or limited approval.

Moreover, the section 184 requirements

are extrinsic to an area’s status for

designation purposes. Assurance of

compliance with the section 184

requirements is to be achieved not

through the redesignation process, but

by the sanctions provisions provided by

the Act.

Comment #7

CAC argues that ‘‘EPA’s new policy

tries to have it both ways.’’ CAC claims

that EPA previously ‘‘asserted that

requirements specifically pegged to an

area’s attainment status or to reasonable

further progress need not be met as a

prerequisite to redesignation.’’ This

refers to EPA’s policy memorandum

dated May 10, 1995, from John Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, to the Regional Air

Division Directors, entitled ‘‘Reasonable

Further Progress, Attainment

Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard.’’ In that

memorandum, EPA stated that it is

reasonable to interpret provisions

regarding reasonable further progress

(RFP) and attainment demonstrations,

along with certain other related

provisions, so as not to require certain

SIP submissions if an ozone

nonattainment area subject to those

requirements is monitoring attainment

of the ozone standard. CAC goes on to

argue that EPA’s rationale for its

proposed redesignation policy change,

which ‘‘contends that because the § 184

requirements are not pegged to

attainment, they too are not

prerequisites to redesignation,’’

contradicts the Agency’s previous

position.

EPA Response

EPA’s May 10, 1995 policy

memorandum interprets an area’s

obligation to submit SIP revisions for

RFP, attainment demonstrations, and

other related provisions as not

applicable, if an ozone nonattainment

area subject to those requirements is

monitoring attainment of the ozone

standard. The Act’s RFP and attainment

demonstrations requirements are

intended to move an area towards

attainment of the ozone standard. If an

area is already attaining the standard,

EPA believes that it is reasonable to

suspend these requirements for as long

as an area attains the standard. This

view was upheld by the United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 95–9541

(10th Cir. 1996). EPA maintains that its

new redesignation policy does not

conflict with its May 10, 1995 policy.

EPA’s new redesignation policy relates

to OTR requirements under section 184

of the Act, which are not related to RFP

or an area’s ability to demonstrate

attainment of the standard. These OTR

requirements are intended to reduce

regional emissions in the OTR.

Moreover, as stated above, EPA is not

waiving these requirements. All areas in

the OTR, regardless of attainment status,

are obligated to fulfill these

requirements.

The May 10, 1995 determination of

attainment policy dealt with a

completely different set of issues not

comparable to those addressed by

section 184. EPA’s rationale for finding

the provisions of sections 182 and

172(c) not applicable was different from,

but not inconsistent with, its rationale

for finding the section 184 provisions

inapplicable. In its May 10 policy, EPA

interpreted as inapplicable certain

statutory provisions—RFP, attainment

demonstration, and section 172(c)

contingency measures—whose

requirements served no useful function

once an area was attaining the standard,

and whose purpose was achieved prior

to redesignation. This rationale does not

exclude independent justifications for

interpreting other provisions of the Act

as inapplicable. The grounds for finding

section 184 requirements inapplicable is

that these requirements remain in place

even after redesignation, and thus

redesignation will not preclude them

from being enforced. This justification,

although different from the May 10

policy, is not in conflict with it.

Even if EPA were not to rely on its

new policy of interpreting section 184

requirements as inapplicable for

purposes of evaluating redesignation

requests, EPA’s authority to create a de

minimis exception to requirements

provides a sufficient independent

alternative ground for finding that these

requirements have been met for

purposes of redesignation.

Since the Reading area has

demonstrated attainment and

maintenance without the section 184

measures, and since these requirements

will remain in place, EPA believes that

there are grounds for making a finding

that requiring satisfaction of these

requirements prior to redesignation

yields only insignificant environmental

benefits. Indeed, EPA concludes that its

existing policy with respect to NSR in

the context of redesignation warrants a

finding that the Reading area qualifies

for a de minimis exception to the NSR

requirement.

NSR: In a memorandum of Mary

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994,

entitled Part D New Source Review (part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment), EPA set forth its policy not

to insist on a fully-approved NSR

program as a prerequisite to

redesignation as an exercise of the

Agency’s general authority to establish

de minimis exceptions to statutory

requirements. See Alabama Power Co. v.

Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360–61 (D.C. Cir.

1979). Under Alabama Power, EPA has

the authority to establish de minimis

exceptions to statutory requirements

where the application of the statutory

requirements would be of trivial or no

value environmentally. In the Mary

Nichols memorandum of October 14,

EPA concluded that, although the NSR

provisions of section 110 and Part D

appear to be applicable requirements

that would have to be met prior to

redesignation, EPA may establish a de

minimis exception to the requirement

where no significant environmental

value exists. EPA determined that where

maintenance is demonstrated without

reliance on NSR reductions, and where

a prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) program will replace it, there is

little or no environmental benefit from

requiring full approval of NSR prior to

redesignation, and thus a de minimis

exception is justified. See Nichols

memorandum. See also Cleveland final

rulemaking notice (FRN), 61 FR 20469–

20470 (May 7, 1996). Here, similarly,

Pennsylvania has demonstrated that

there is no need for part D NSR during

the maintenance period to provide for

continued maintenance of the NAAQS.

To satisfy the requirements of section

184, Pennsylvania has submitted a

revision to its Part D NSR program,

which is awaiting EPA approval. EPA

has concluded that these circumstances

warrant a further application and

elaboration upon the de minimis

exception set forth in the October 14

memorandum. In accordance with that

policy, EPA has determined that, for an

area outside the OTR, there need not be

a fully approved part D NSR program
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 24833

prior to redesignation where it is not

required for maintenance and where it

will be replaced by a PSD program. EPA

believes that the reasons underlying this

de minimis exception apply with equal

or greater force to the Reading area,

which has shown that NSR is not

required for maintenance but where Part

D NSR obligations, rather than PSD, will

continue to apply after redesignation.

Thus, EPA concludes that the Mary

Nichols memorandum and the

principles on which it is founded

warrant an extension of the de minimis

exception to the NSR requirement

imposed by section 184. This de

minimis exception provides a separate

and independent ground for concluding

that the Reading area has met the

requirements for redesignation with

respect to NSR.

I/M: With respect to the I/M program,

legislative authority for basic I/M is

sufficient to meet the I/M redesignation

rule. Apart from that, section 184

requires enhanced I/M, but it does not

have to be approved prior to

redesignation, since redesignation will

not operate to relieve the Reading area

of the requirement. The Reading area

has in fact received conditional

approval of its enhanced I/M program,

and the area will start implementing the

program by November, 1999.

Comment #8

CAC claims that EPA cannot support

its proposed policy change by ‘‘citing

other instances where the Agency has

failed to comply with the Act. Kokechik

Fisherman’s Association v. Secretary of

Commerce, 838 F.2d 795, 802–03 (D.C.

Cir. 1988) (‘[p]ast administrative

practice that is inconsistent with the

purpose of an act of Congress cannot

provide an exception’).’’ CAC asserts

that EPA cannot support its proposal by

citing the Agency’s previous actions

concerning conformity and oxygenated

fuels.

EPA Response

EPA maintains that its previous

actions that determined conformity and

oxygenated fuels as not being applicable

requirements for purposes of evaluating

redesignation requests comply with the

Act. Furthermore, those actions were

the subjects of prior rulemaking, which

EPA promulgated after notice and

comment. The period for review of

those actions has passed.

Final Action

Because Pennsylvania has corrected

all deficiencies that were previously

identified in the redesignation request

and maintenance plan for the Reading

area, EPA has determined that the

Commonwealth’s submittals satisfy the

Clean Air Act’s five criteria for

redesignation. EPA is approving

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request for

the area, submitted on November 12,

1993, and the ten-year ozone

maintenance plan for the Reading area,

which Pennsylvania submitted on

January 28, 1997. EPA is also approving

the 1990 base year VOC, NOX, and CO

inventories for the Reading ozone

nonattainment area, which were

submitted on January 28, 1997, because

Pennsylvania has corrected all

deficiencies that were previously

identified in those inventories. In

addition, for purposes of satisfying the

I/M redesignation rule of January 1995,

EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s

legislative authority to adopt and

implement an I/M program. Finally,

EPA is changing its policy on

redesignation requirements for ozone

nonattainment areas in the OTR. The

policy change makes redesignation

requirements for areas in the OTR

consistent with requirements for areas

outside the OTR by interpreting

requirements under section 184 of the

Clean Air Act as not being applicable for

the purpose of redesignation.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. 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

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 Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 CAA, preparation of a

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,

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

7410(a)(2).

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

EPA certifies that the approval of the

redesignation request will not affect a

substantial number of small entities.

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 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal
24834 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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, approving Pennsylvania’s

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the Reading area, must be filed

in the United States Court of Appeals

for the appropriate circuit by July 7,

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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 22, 1997.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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 NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2020 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(123) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(123) The ten-year ozone maintenance

plan for the Reading, Pennsylvania area

(Berks County) submitted by the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection on January

28, 1997:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of January 28, 1997 from the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection transmitting

the ten-year ozone maintenance plan

and 1990 base year emission inventories

for the Reading area.

(B) The ten-year ozone maintenance

plan for the Reading area, including

emission projections, control measures

to maintain attainment and contingency

measures, adopted on February 3, 1997.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of January 28, 1997

Commonwealth submittal pertaining to

the maintenance plan for the Reading

area.

3. Section 52.2036 is amended by

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 52.2036 1990 Base year emission

inventory.

* * * * *

(e) EPA approves as a revision to the

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan

(SIP) the 1990 base year emission

inventories for the Reading,

Pennsylvania area (Berks County)

submitted by the Secretary of the

Environment, on January 28, 1997. This

submittal consists of the 1990 base year

point, area, non-road mobile, biogenic

and on-road mobile source emission

inventories in the area for the following

pollutants: volatile organic compounds

(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and

oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

4. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

5. In § 81.339 the ozone table is

amended by revising the entry for the

Reading area, Berks County to read as

follows:

§ 81.339 Pennsylvania.

* * * * *

PENNSYLVANIA—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Reading Area Berks County ........................... June 23, 1997 ............ Unclassifiable/Attainment.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 24835

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–11910 Filed 5–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 Part CFR 180

[OPP–300480; FRL–5713–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Aminoethoxyvinylglycine; Pesticide

Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

time-limited tolerances for residues of

the plant regulator

aminoethoxyvinylglycine in or on the

food commodities apples and pears. The

tolerances expire on and will be revoked

by EPA on April 1, 2001. Abbott

Laboratories 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 tolerances. This

regulation sets the permissible levels of

this plant regulator on apples and pears.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective May 7, 1997.

Objections and hearing requests must be

filed by July 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number [OPP–

300480], may 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, Pittsburg, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and submitted to: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations 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 22202.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically to

the OPP by sending electronic mail (email) to: opp-docket@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 in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [OPP–300480]. 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. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found in

Unit VII of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Denise Greenway, c/o Product

Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 5–W57, CS #1, 2800 Crystal Drive,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–8263; email:

greenway.denise@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of February 20, 1997

(62 FR 7778), EPA issued a notice

pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

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

of a pesticide tolerance petition by

Abbott Laboratories, 1401 Sheridan

Road, North Chicago, IL 60064–4000.

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 adding

tolerances for residues of

aminoethoxyvinylglycine, in or on the

following food commodities: apples at

0.08 part per million (ppm), and pears

at 0.08 ppm.

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 relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicology data listed

below were considered in support of

these tolerances.

I. Toxicological Profile

1. A battery of acute toxicity studies

placing technical

aminoethoxyvinylglycine in Toxicity

Categories III and IV.

2. A 13–week feeding study in rats at

dietary intakes of 0, 0.45, 1.9 and 9.2

milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/

day) (males) and 0, 0.55, 2.2, and 9.4

mg/kg/day (females) with a noobserved-effect-level (NOEL) of 9.2 mg/

kg/day for male rats and 2.2 mg/kg/day

for female rats. The lowest-observedeffect-level (LOEL) was established at

9.4 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested

in females) based on reduced body

weight gain, food consumption and food

efficiency; increased severity and

incidence of reversible kidney and liver

effects; and discoloration of the liver.

3. A developmental toxicity study in

rats at 0, 0.4, 1.77, and 8.06 mg/kg/day.

The maternal LOEL is 8.06 mg/kg/day

(the highest dose tested) based on

decreased defecation, body weight gain,

and food consumption; and the

presence of red material around the

nose. The developmental LOEL is also

8.06 mg/kg/day based on decreased

mean fetal body weight and increases

(within historical ranges) in two

developmental skeletal variants

(reduced ossification of the sternebrae

and vertebral arches). The NOEL for

maternal and developmental toxicity

was established at 1.77 mg/kg/day.

4. A 21–day repeated dose dermal

toxicity study in rats at 0, 100, 500, and

1,000 mg/kg/day. The NOEL is 1,000

mg/kg/day; a LOEL was not determined.

5. An immunotoxicity study in rats at

0, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 15 mg/kg/day with a

NOEL of 5 mg/kg/day based on the

decreased primary antibody (IgM)

response to sheep red blood cells;

decreased absolute and relative thymus

weights; decreased body weight, food

consumption and food efficiency at the

high-dose level. The LOEL is 15 mg/kg/

day. The study did not fully meet the

requirements outlined in the Pesticide

Assessment Guidelines Subdivision M

OPPTS Series 152–18. However,

because a NOEL and LOEL were

determined, and found to be consistent

with those from other repeat-dose

studies, the study need not be repeated.

6. An acceptable Ames study for

inducing reverse mutation in

Salmonella strains of bacteria exposed

with or without activation at doses up

to 5,000 micrograms per plate. The

study showed negative results.

7. An acceptable study for inducing

micronuclei in bone marrow cells of rats

treated up to the maximum dose tested

of 6,200 mg/kg. The study showed

negative results.

8. A mutagenicity study with mouse

lymphoma cells with or without

activation to doses up to 5,000

micrograms/mL.

Aminoethoxyvinylglycine is not

mutagenic or cytotoxic when tested

against mouse lymphoma cells strain

L5178Y at a concentration of 5,000

micrograms/mL.