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

forjudicial 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 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart60

Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

Dated: April 18, 1997. Jack W.McGraw, ActingRegional Administrator. Chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

### PART52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read asfollows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 7671q. 

### Subpart TT-Utah

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(37) to read as follows: §52.2320 Identificationofplan. )* * * * * (c)* 

### (37) On November 20, 1996, the Governor ofUtah submitted arevision to theUtah State Implementation Plan. The submittal included a new Utah regulation which incorporates by reference theFederal new source performance standards in 40 CFRpart 60, asin effect on March 12, 1996.

(i)Incorporation byreference. (A) Utah Air Conservation Regulations, R307-18-1, "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS)," effective September 9, 1996, printed October 19, 1996. 

### PART60-[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. 

### SubpartA-General Provisions

2. In §60.4(c), the table for "Delegation Status ofNew Source Performance Standards [(NSPS) for Region VIII]" is amended by adding to the end ofthe 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 SD 1 UT1 WY

WWW M unicipal Solid Waste Landfills

........................................................................ 

### (*)
1Indicates approval of New Source Performance Standards as part ofthe State Implementation Plan (SIP). (*)Indicates approval of State regulations.

[ERDoc. 97 11913 Filed 5 6 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52and 81 [PA036-4060; FRL-5819-8] Approval and Promulgation ofAir QualityImplementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation, Maintenance Plan, and Emissions Inventories for Reading; Ozone Redesignations PolicyChange

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request for the Reading, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area, and StateImplementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. The revisions consist ofa maintenance plan and 1990base year inventories for the Reading area (Berks County, Pennsylvania). In addition, for the purposes ofredesignation, 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 ofthe 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 OTRby interpreting meeting the requirements under section 184 ofthe Clean Air Act

as not being aprerequisite for the purpose ofredesignation. The policy does not affect obligations required under other sections ofthe Act. EFFECTIVE DATE: This finalrule is effective on June 6, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours atthe 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 ofAir Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, (215) 566-2181, atthe EPA Region IIIoffice address listed above, orvia e-mail at pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov. While information may be requested viaemail, comments must be submitted in writing to the above Region IIIaddress. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 10, 1996 (61 FR53174), EPA published anotice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR)for the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania. The NPRproposed approval ofthe redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 1990 volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides ofnitrogen (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) base year inventories for the Reading area, contingent upon Pennsylvania's correction ofall deficiencies contained in the maintenance plan and

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24826 1997

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

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 ofredesignation, EPA proposed approval ofPennsylvania'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 ofproposed rulemaking (NPR), and are addressed below in the Response to Comments section ofthis 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 arevised maintenance plan and revised inventories on January 28, 1997.

On October 10, 1996, EPA published

aproposed approval ofthe redesignation request, maintenance plan, and inventories, contingent upon Pennsylvania correcting deficiencies identified in its submittals (61 FR 53174). On January 28, 1997, Pennsylvania submitted amaintenance plan and 1990 base year inventories for the Reading area, which completely supersede the previous submittals and address the requirements ofEPA's proposed approval.

As stated in EPA's proposed approval ofthe Reading arearedesignation request, maintenance plan, and 1990 base year inventories (61 FR53174), 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 tojustify the 1990 base year emission inventories submitted in the redesignation request. This support must include sample calculations for point, area, and mobile
sources, alist ofallpoint 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 itprovides adequate contingency measures. The plan must contain a list ofmeasures 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 ofthe contingencies in the event that they are implemented. The list ofcontingency

measures must include abasic 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 ofa basic IM 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 ofPennsylvania'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 1990VOC, NOx, and CO inventories for the Reading

ozone nonattainment area. A brief description ofhow Pennsylvania's submittal addresses the five requirements is provided below. (1)ProjectedEmissionInventories

Pennsylvania's January 28, 1997 revision to the maintenance plan for the Reading area includes adequate technical support tojustify 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) 1990Base YearEmissionInventories

Pennsylvania's revised maintenance plan for the Reading area contains adequate technical support tojustify the 1990 base yearemission inventories for the Reading area. The support materials include sample calculations for point,
area, and mobile sources, alist ofall 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 ofattainment conditions because the standard was not violated during 1992, and because that year was one ofthe 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 10year period (2007) and provides an interim-year inventory, as required byEPA guidance, for the year 2004. Pennsylvania has demonstrated that emissions forozone precursors through the year 2007 will remain below the 1992 attainment year levels because ofpermanent 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 perday) 1990

VOCs

Poin t sources .................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.41 Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 25.96 1992 2004 2007

23 21.47 209 

## 24827

12.01 25.13 12.03 20.96

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24827 1997

## 24828 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Emissions (tons perday) 1990 1992 2004 2007

M

obile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 25.29 22.59 19.36 19.00

T

otal

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



### NOx

Poin t sources .................................................................................................................................................... 25.60 25.20 21.65 22.40 Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 2.63 2.65 2.78 2.82 M

obile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 29.54 28.78 25.57 25.43

T

otal

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



### Co

Poin t sources .................................................................................................................................................... 9.12 8.55 7.83 7.71 Area sources .................................................................................................................................................... 2.65 2.66 2.74 2.76 M

obile sources ................................................................................................................................................. 252.74 225.22 165.52 166.20

T

otal

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

(3) RA CT subject to federally enforceable state source to be subject to VOC RACT, but operating permit conditions that limit notNOx RACT. Pennsylvania has submitted RACT their potential emissions to less than Pennsylvania submitted RACT SIP SIPrevisions for all major sources 100 tons per year NOx. Therefore, EPA revisions for the newly identified source subject to RACT in the Reading area. At considers these sources to be no longer on January 21, 1997. Pennsylvania the time ofEPA's proposed approval, on subject to RACT. submitted RACT SIP revisions forthe October 10, 1996, EPA had identified On March 20, 1997, Pennsylvania remaining two RACT sources on January four sources for which Pennsylvania withdrew the NOx portion ofits RACT 28, 1997.

was required to submit RACT SIPs. SIP revision for Lucent Technologies Furthermore, as shown in the Subsequently, EPA identified a fifth (AT&T)-Reading. This source is subject following tables, EPA has approved all

source asbeing subject to RACT. to federally enforceable state operating RACT SIPs for the Reading area. Thus, However, Pennsylvania's revision to the permit conditions that limit its potential Pennsylvania has fulfilled its moderate Reading area maintenance plan emissions to less than 100 tons per year area RACT obligation under section 182 indicates that two ofthese sources are NOx. Therefore, EPA considers this for the Reading area.

SOURCE Pennsylvania EPA approval EPA apsubmittal date signature proval 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 M

etropolitan Edison Co. (M etEd)- Titus

........................................................................................ 3/27/95 3/31/97 4/18/97 Lucent Technologies (AT&T)- Reading

......................................................................................... 8/1/95 4/1/97 4/18/97 M

organ Corp.- Morgantown .......................................................................................................... 11/15/95 3/31/97 4/18/97 Quaker M aid (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 M

aier's Bakery- Reading

............................................................................................................... 11/15/95 3/31/97 4/18/97



### NOx RACT

M

etropolitan Edison Co (MetEd)- Titus

......................................................................................... 3/27/95 3/31/97 4/18/97 AllentownCement 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)RA CTDeclaration

In the cover letter for Pennsylvania's January 28, 1997 submittal, which transmitted amendments to its maintenance plan and 1990base 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, allrequired RACT SIPs were submitted
to EPA as SIP revisions byJanuary 28, 1997.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24828 1997

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

(5) ContingencyMeasures

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

aviolation ofthe ozone standard. In addition, Pennsylvania will develop a periodic inventory every 3 years. Ifa 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 ofthe

ozone standard.

Pennsylvania's revised maintenance plan for the Reading area includes, as a contingency measure, the low enhanced I/Mprogram 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 ofthe Pennsylvania's I/M program was published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1997 (62 FR4004). Pennsylvania estimates that this program will result in a VOC emission reduction of 1.5 tons per day and aNOx emission reduction of0.2 tonsper 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 byNovember 15, 1999. EPA considers the actual implementation oflow enhanced I/Min the Reading area to be environmentally better than a contingency measure that may be implemented, ifthe 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 ofthese activities. Facilities that fallunder the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 51 willbe 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 ofthe maintenance plan and 1990base 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 ofthe 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 ofmeeting 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) ofthe Clean Air Act (the Act) are "secondary requirements." They go on to claim that delaying the redesignation ofthe Reading area "will prohibit economic growth and development in the Berks County Region."

EPA Response

Under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Act, allfive ofthe 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 ofsection 110 and Part D ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe ozone standard willbe 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 ofthe Act as not being aprerequisite forthe purpose ofredesignation.

EPA Response

EPA agrees with this comment, for the

reasons stated in its proposal and in the furtherresponses to comments set forth below. In addition, EPA notes that, at this time, Pennsylvania has made submissions addressing all ofits section 184 requirements for the Reading area, and has received oris 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 ofsection 107(d)(3)(E), EPA is empowered to create a de minimis exception forthem. 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 ofthem prior to redesignation would be oftrivial environmental significance. Under AlabamaPowerv. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979), EPA may establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements where the application ofthe statutory requirements would be oftrivial 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 forceregardless ofthe area's 

### 24829

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24829 1997

## 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 ofits obligations under section 184. It has satisfied the RACT requirements. Only
two limited aspects ofReading's section 184 requirements are subject to further undertakings; an element ofits new
sourcereview (NSR)program, and, certain conditions related to its low enhanced I/Mprogram. With respect to I/M, Pennsylvania has obtained final conditional interim approval ofits low enhanced I/Mprogram. With respect to NSR, on April 22, 1997, the Regional Administrator ofEPA, Region III signed

aproposed limited approval of Pennsylvania's February 4, 1994 NSR submittal. EPA has proposed to grant limited approval ofthis SIP revision because it strengthens the current SIP's NSRrequirements, and because it limits the use ofprior shutdown credits in a
manner that is consistent with EPA's NSRreform rulemaking, which was proposed for approval in the July 23, 1996 Federal Register. See 61 FR 38249. This NSRreform rulemaking proposes to lift he currentprohibition on the use ofprior shutdown credits. The Pennsylvania SIP revision limits,but does not prohibit the use ofprior shutdown credits. Current NSRprogram requirements prohibit the use ofprior shutdown credits. However, it is important to note that Pennsylvania's existingNSR SIPrule also does not prohibit the use ofprior shutdown credits, and that the Pennsylvania SIP revision is generally consistent with EPA's proposed NSRreform rulemaking. Therefore, EPA has proposed limited approval ofthis SIP revision based upon the fact that it strengthens the existing SIP'sNSR requirements, and upon its conformance with EPA's proposed NSR reform rulemaking. When EPA promulgates the NSRreform 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 ofthe Act as notbeing 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." CACmaintains that "EPA'sproposed policy contravenes the Act and must not be adopted," and goes on to state that even if the Commonwealth corrects allthe deficiencies listed in EPA's proposed approval ofthe Reading redesignation request,EPA must still deny the redesignation request, "becausethe 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 inEPA's proposal for this policy change,EPAbelieves it is reasonable and appropriate to interpret the section 184 requirements as not being applicable requirements for
purposes of evaluatingaredesignation request,because the requirement to submit these SIP revisions continues to apply to areas inthe OTRafter redesignation to attainment,and because these control measures are region-wide requirements and do not apply to the Reading area byvirtue of the area's nonattainment designation.

With respect to its conclusion that section 184 requirements are inapplicable for purposes of evaluating

aredesignation request,EPAhas construed applicable requirements as being those thatmust be satisfied prior to redesignation because they will not remain inforce after redesignation,and whose purpose isrelated to assuring attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS inthe area seeking redesignation.EPA has inthe past interpreted "applicablerequirements" inlight ofthe purposes ofthe redesignation requirement.The requirements that are applicable for purposes ofredesignation are those whose purpose is to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe 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.Theirpurpose 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 inthe OTR, both attainment and nonattainment, must implement to reduce the possibility of transport to areas outside ofthe area being redesignated. EPAhas 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 withoutregard
to their designation. Here, the Reading area has met all applicable requirements forredesignation for areas notin the OTR.For areas in the OTR, section 184 requirements will remain in effect after redesignation, and thus redesignation will nothave operated to relieve the Reading area ofthe 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 ofFinal Rulemaking 61 FR 20467-20468 (May 7, 1996) and Tampa, Notice ofFinal Rulemaking, 60 FR 62748, 62741 (December 7, 1995). Because redesignation will not allow these requirements to be evaded, it does not undermine theirenforcement or the goals ofredesignation.

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 theserequirements based upon an analysis that shows that they are ofde minimis value as aprerequisite to redesignation. This constitutes a separate and independent ground for concluding that the Reading area is entitled to approval ofits request for redesignation.

In reaching its conclusions, EPA is not "picking and choosing" among requirements, but making principled interpretations ofwhat constitutes an applicable requirement or valid exception to a requirement, based upon
areading ofthe statute.

With respect to EPA's reliance on the determination ofattainment in finding that the Reading area has met the requirements for redesignation, the grounds forEPA's interpretation of section 182(b)(1)(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 ofCleveland, 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

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24830 1997

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

threat of sanctions has not improved the timeliness or quality ofSIPrevisions 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 ofozone 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 ofaddressing 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 ofa disincentive, is notpersuasive. First, the purpose ofredesignation is not to enforce any particular set of requirements, butrather to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe 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 forredesignation 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 NSRrules, which have received a limited approval from EPA, pending final issuance ofEPA's proposed revision ofits NSRrules. 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 ofany 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 ofredesignation might somehow secure compliance with requirements that have already been substantially completed, and which are enforceable by othermeans.

ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RA CT):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 ofVOC and NOx with the potential to emit 100 tons per year (TPY) or greater in the area. EPA has approved all ofthese RACT submittals. Under section 184, Pennsylvania is also obligated to submit RACT SIP revisions for allVOC 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 InspectionandMaintenance (IM): On March 22, 1996, Pennsylvania submitted alow enhanced I/Mprogram under the November 28, 1995 NHSDA. EPA's final conditional interim approval ofthe Pennsylvania's I/Mprogram was published in the January 28, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR4004). Pennsylvania intends to fully implement this low enhanced program by November 15, 1999.

New SourceReview (NSR): On February 4, 1994, Pennsylvania submitted its final NSRregulations to EPA. EPA determined that the submittal

was complete on February 28, 1994. On April 22, 1997, EPA's proposed limited approval ofPennsylvania's NSR submittal was signed bythe Regional Administrator.

Comment #5

CAC contends that EPA's proposed policy change "ignores the rationale offered inthe General Preamble" to Title Iofthe 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 ofthe 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 onlybe adopted if triggered, redesignated areas in the OTR continue
to be obligated to fulfill these OTR requirements, regardless ofattainment designation or maintenance ofthe standard. Furthermore, EPA's proposed approval ofthe Reading area's redesignation request and maintenance plan required Pennsylvania to include I/ M as acontingency measure. As stated above, notonly 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/Mby 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

nobearing on the situation ofan OTR
state such as Pennsylvania, where the section 184 requirements will remain fully applicable, and where they will
notbe relegated to the role of contingency measures after redesignation. Thus thejustification in the General Preamble and cited by the
commenters forrequiring 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 ofthis policy change, EPA is not waiving the section 184 requirement, established in theAct to address long-range transport ofozone and ozone precursors. Even 

## 24831

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24831 1997

## 24832 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

afterredesignation 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 ofthose requirements. In the case ofthe 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 itboth ways." CACclaims that EPA previously "asserted that requirements specifically pegged to an area's attainment status or to reasonable further progress need notbe met as a prerequisite to redesignation." This refers to EPA's policy memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from John Seitz, Director, Office ofAir 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, alongwith certain otherrelated provisions, so as not to require certain SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area subject to those requirements is monitoring attainment ofthe ozone standard. CAC goes on to argue that EPA'srationale 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 ofthe ozone standard. The Act's RFP and attainment demonstrations requirements are intended to move an area towards attainment ofthe ozone standard. Ifan
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 ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit in SierraClubv. 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 OTRrequirements under section 184 ofthe Act, which are not related to RFP

or an area's ability to demonstrate attainment ofthe 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 ofattainment status,

are obligated to fulfill these requirements.

The May 10, 1995 determination of attainment policy dealt with a completely different set ofissues not comparable to those addressed by section 184. EPA's rationale for finding the provisions ofsections 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 10policy, 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 independentjustifications for interpreting other provisions ofthe Act

as inapplicable. The grounds for finding section 184 requirements inapplicable is that these requirements remain in place

even afterredesignation, and thus redesignation will not preclude them from being enforced. Thisjustification, although different from the May 10 policy, is not in conflict with it.

Even if EPA were not to rely on its

new policy ofinterpreting section 184 requirements as inapplicable for purposes ofevaluating 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 ofredesignation. Since the Reading area has demonstrated attainment and maintenance without the section 184 measures, and since these requirements willremain in place, EPA believes that there are grounds for making a finding that requiring satisfaction ofthese requirements prior to redesignation yields only insignificant environmental benefits. Indeed, EPA concludes that its existingpolicy with respect to NSR in the context ofredesignation warrants a finding that the Reading area qualifies for ade minimis exception to the NSR requirement.

NSR: In a memorandum ofMary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled Part DNew SourceReview (part DNSR) Requirements forAreas RequestingRedesignationto Attainment),EPA set forth its policy not to insist on a fully-approved NSR program as aprerequisite to redesignation as an exercise ofthe Agency's general authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements. SeeAlabamaPowerCo. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir. 1979). UnderAlabamaPower,EPA has the authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements where the application ofthe statutory requirements would be oftrivial or no value environmentally. In the Mary Nichols memorandum ofOctober 14, EPA concluded that, although the NSR provisions ofsection 110 and Part D appear to be applicable requirements that would have to be metprior to redesignation, EPA may establish a de minimisexception to the requirement where no significant environmental value exists. EPA determined that where maintenance is demonstrated without reliance on NSRreductions, and where

aprevention of significant deterioration (PSD)program will replace it, there is little or no environmental benefit from requiring full approval ofNSRprior to redesignation, and thus a de minimis exception isjustified. 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 NSRduring the maintenance period to provide for continued maintenance ofthe NAAQS. To satisfy the requirements ofsection 184, Pennsylvania has submitted a revision to its Part D NSRprogram, which is awaitingEPA 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 NSRprogram

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24832 1997

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

prior to redesignation where it is not required for maintenance and where it will be replaced by a PSDprogram. EPA believes that the reasons underlying this de minimisexception 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 afterredesignation. Thus, EPA concludes that the Mary Nichols memorandum and the principles on which it is founded
warrant an extension ofthe de minim is exception to the NSRrequirement 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. IM:With respect to the I/Mprogram, legislative authority for basic I/Mis sufficient to meet the I/Mredesignation 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 ofthe requirement. The Reading area has in fact received conditional approval ofits enhanced I/Mprogram, 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 Associationv. Secretaryof Commerce, 838 F.2d 795, 802-03 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ('[p]ast administrative practice that is inconsistent with the purpose of an act ofCongress 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 ofevaluating redesignation requests comply with the Act. Furthermore, those actions were the subjects ofpriorrulemaking, which EPA promulgated after notice and
comment. The period forreview 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 1990base 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 ofJanuary 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 OTRby interpreting requirements under section 184 ofthe Clean Air Act as not being applicable for the purpose ofredesignation.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent 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.

Il. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

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 aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq., EPA must prepare
aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do notcreate any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania 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 ofthe Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation ofa flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Actforbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Redesignation ofan area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does notimpose any regulatory requirements on sources. EPA certifies that the approval ofthe redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
C. UnfundedMandates

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule that includes a Federal mandate that mayresult 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 ofthe rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that maybe significantly oruniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that mayresult 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 ofPennsylvania

or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,or tribal 

## 24833

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24833 1997

## 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 Congressand 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 areport containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe General Accounting Office prior to publication ofthe rule in today's Federal Register. Thisrule is
not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions forJudicialReview
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action, approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Reading area, mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals 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 ofthisrule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule

or action. This action may notbe challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart81

Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 22, 1997. Stanley L Laskowski, ActingRegionalAdministrator, RegionIL Chapter I, title 40 ofthe 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 addingparagraph (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 byreference. (A) Letter ofJanuary 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 ofJanuary 28, 1997 Commonwealth submittal pertaining to the maintenance plan forthe Reading

area.

3. Section 52.2036 is amended by addingparagraph (e) to read as follows:
§52.2036 1990 Baseyear emission inventory.

(e) EPA approves as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the 1990 base year emission inventories forthe Reading, Pennsylvania area (Berks County) submitted by the Secretary ofthe Environment, on January 28, 1997. This submittal consists ofthe 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 ofnitrogen (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 forthe Reading area, Berks County to read as follows:
§81.339 Pennsylvania.

PENNSYLVANIA-OZONE
Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Reading Area Berks County

........................... June 23, 1997

............ Unclassifiable/Attainment.

iThis date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24834 1997

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

[FRDoc. 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] RIN2070-AB78 Aminoethoxyvinylglycine; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

### Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: This document establishes time-limited tolerances forresidues of theplant regulator aminoethoxyvinylglycine in or on the food commodities apples and pears. The tolerances expire on and will berevoked by EPAon April 1, 2001. Abbott Laboratories submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as amended by theFood Quality Protection Act of 1996 requesting thetolerances. This regulation sets thepermissible levels of this plantregulator on apples and pears. EFFECTIVE DATE: Thisregulation 

### becomes effective May 7, 1997. Objections and hearing requests mustbe filed by July 7, 1997. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearingrequests, identified bythe document control number [OPP300480], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC20460.Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests shall be labeled "Tolerance Petition Fees" and forwarded to EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (ToleranceFees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburg, PA 15251. Acopy ofany 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 ofPesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC20460. In person, bringa copy ofobjections and hearingrequests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.

A copy ofobjections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk may alsobe submitted electronically to the OPPby sending electronic mail (email) to: opp-docket6

### aepa.gov. Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form ofencryption. Copies ofobjections and hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in Wordperfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All copies ofobjections 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 ofobjections 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 ofthis document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Denise Greenway, c/oProduct 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: greenw ay.denise@epamail.epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register ofFebruary 20, 1997 (62 FR7778), EPA issued anotice pursuant to section 408(d) ofthe Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), announcing the filing ofa pesticide tolerance petition by Abbott Laboratories, 1401 Sheridan Road, North Chicago, IL 60064-4000. The notice contained a summary ofthe petition prepared bythe 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 at0.08 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 ofacute toxicity studies placing technical aminoethoxyvinylglycine in Toxicity Categories III and IV.

2. A 13-week feeding study in rats at dietary intakes of0, 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)of9.2mg/ kg/day for male rats and 2.2 mg/kg/day for female rats. The lowest-observedeffect-level (LOEL) was established at 9.4mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested in females) based on reduced body weight gain, food consumption and food efficiency; increased severity and incidence ofreversible kidney and liver effects; and discoloration ofthe 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 (thehighest dose tested) based on decreased defecation, body weight gain, and food consumption; and the presence ofred material around the

nose. The developmental LOEL is also 8.06 mg/kg/day based on decreased

mean fetal body weight and increases (withinhistorical ranges) in two developmental skeletal variants (reduced ossification ofthe 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; aLOEL was not determined.



### 5. An immunotoxicity study in rats at 0, 1.25, 2.5, 5 and 15 mg/kg/day with a NOEL of5 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 aNOEL and LOEL were determined, and found to be consistent with those from otherrepeat-dose studies, the study need notbe repeated.

6. An acceptable Ames study for inducing reverse mutation in Salmonellastrains ofbacteria exposed with or without activation atdoses up to 5,000 micrograms per plate. The study showed negative results.

7. An acceptable study for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells ofrats treated up to the maximum dose tested of6,200 mg/kg. The study showed negative results.

8. A mutagenicity study with mouse lymphoma cells with orwithout 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 of5,000 micrograms/mL. 

## 24835

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 24835 1997