13332 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A.,

427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action approves pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

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

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 19, 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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of

Washington was approved by the Director of

the Office of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW—Washington

2. Section 52.2470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (71) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(71) On March 6, 1996, the Director of

the Washington State Department of

Ecology (Ecology) submitted to the

Regional Administrator of EPA a

revision to the Puget Sound Air

Pollution Control Agency Regulations,

Regulations I, II, and III.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter dated August 6, 1996 from

the Department of Ecology to EPA

revising the Puget Sound Air Pollution

Control Agency Regulations; Regulation

II Section 3.11 (Coatings and Ink

Manufacturing), effective on May 16,

1996; and Regulation III Section 3.01

(Hard and Decorative Chromium

Electroplating and Chromium

Anodizing), effective on July 18, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97–7098 Filed 3–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO–001–0015a; FRL–5700–3]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of State Implementation

Plan; Colorado; Prevention of

Significant Deterioration; Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is

approving revisions to Colorado’s

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) permitting requirements in

Regulation No. 3, which were submitted

as revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) by the Governor on August 1,

1996. The revisions were submitted

mainly to address the replacement of

the total suspended particulate (TSP)

increments with increments for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

ten micrometers (PM–10). EPA is also

deleting the TSP area designation table

and revising the PM–10 area designation

table in 40 CFR part 81 for Colorado.

With the PM–10 increments becoming
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13333

effective in these areas, the TSP area

designations no longer serve any useful

purpose relative to PSD.

Also in this document, EPA is

amending the language in 40 CFR

52.343(a)(3) to further clarify which

sources EPA retains PSD permitting

authority over in the State of Colorado.

DATES: This action will become effective

on May 19, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by April

21, 1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other information are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations: Air Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2405; Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment, Air

Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry

Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado

80222–1530; and The Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicki Stamper, 8P2–A, at (303) 312–

6445.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In this document, EPA is acting on

revisions to the PSD permitting program

in Regulation No. 3 for the State of

Colorado. The State’s revisions were

generally made to address the

replacement of the TSP increments with

increments for PM–10 in the Federal

PSD permitting requirements in 40 CFR

51.166, which were promulgated by

EPA on June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622–

31638). The State also made other minor

administrative changes to Regulation

No. 3. This document evaluates the

State’s submittal for conformity with the

corresponding Federal regulations and

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

(Act). In addition, this document

provides justification regarding the

removal of the TSP area designation

table in 40 CFR part 81 for Colorado.

Also in this document, EPA is

amending the language in 40 CFR

52.343(a)(3) to further clarify which

sources EPA retains PSD permitting

authority over in the State of Colorado.

EPA is making this correction pursuant

to section 110(k)(6) of the Act.

II. This Action

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

The EPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review

and action [see section 110(k)(1) and 57

FR 13565, April 16, 1992]. The EPA’s

completeness criteria for SIP submittals

are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix

V. The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law under

section 110(k)(a)(B) if a completeness

determination is not made by EPA

within six months after receipt of the

submission.

A public hearing to entertain public

comment on the initial PSD SIP revision

was held by the State of Colorado on

August 17, 1995, and the rule revisions

were subsequently adopted by the State.

The rule revisions were formally

submitted to EPA for approval on

August 1, 1996. The SIP revision was

reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness shortly after its submittal,

in accordance with the completeness

criteria referenced above. The submittal

was found to be complete, and a letter

dated September 26, 1996 was

forwarded to the Governor indicating

the completeness of the submittal and

the next steps to be taken in the

processing of the SIP submittal.

2. Evaluation of State’s Submittal

a. PM–10 Increment Revisions. As

discussed above, EPA promulgated

increments for PM–10 on June 3, 1993

(see 58 FR 31622–31638). EPA

promulgated revisions to the Federal

PSD permitting regulations in 40 CFR

52.21, as well as to the PSD permitting

requirements that State programs must

meet in order to be approved into the

SIP in 40 CFR 51.166. EPA or its

delegated State programs were required

to begin implementation of the

increments by June 3, 1994, while the

implementation date for States with SIPapproved PSD permitting programs

(such as Colorado) will be the date on

which EPA approves the revised State

PSD program containing the PM–10

increments. In accordance with 40 CFR

51.166(a)(6)(i), States with SIP-approved

PSD programs were required to adopt

the PM–10 increment requirements

within nine months of the effective date

(or by March 3, 1995). For further

background regarding the PM–10

increments, see the June 3, 1993 Federal

Register notice.

In order to address the PM–10

increments, Colorado revised the

following sections of its PSD permitting

regulations in Colorado Regulation No.

3:

(1) The definition of ‘‘baseline area’’

in Section I.B.10. of Part A of Regulation

No. 3 was revised to conform with 40

CFR 51.166(b)(15)(iii);

(2) The definition of ‘‘minor source

baseline date’’ in Section I.B.35. of Part

A of Regulation No. 3 was revised to

conform with 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)(iv);

(3) The definition of ‘‘net emissions

increase’’ in Section I.B.37. of Part A of

Regulation No. 3 was revised to conform

with 40 CFR 51.166(3)(iv);

(4) The State added language to

Section IV.D.3.b.(v) of Part B of

Regulation No. 3 to address the

provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(12),

which allows a State to provide an

exemption from addressing the new

PM–10 increments for sources who have

submitted a PSD permit application

which the State has determined to be

complete before the PM–10 increments

take effect;

(5) The State revised the increments

tables in Section VII.A.1. of Part B of

Regulation No. 3 to incorporate the PM–

10 increments in 40 CFR 51.166(c);

(6) The State revised Section X.D. of

Part B of Regulation No. 3 to address the

changes reflecting PM–10 increments in

40 CFR 51.166(p)(4); and

(7) The State revised Section V.D.11.

of Part A of Regulation No. 3, which

discusses when modeling is required to

determine ambient equivalence of

emissions trades, to replace the TSP

Class I increments with the PM–10 Class

I increments (for determining whether

an ambient impact is significant).

EPA has reviewed these revisions and

has found that the revisions address all

of the required regulatory revisions for

PM–10 increments promulgated by EPA

on June 3, 1993.

b. TSP Area Deletions. Section 107(d)

of the 1977 Amendments to the Act

authorized each State to submit to the

Administrator a list identifying those

areas which (1) do not meet a national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

(nonattainment areas), (2) cannot be

classified on the basis of available

ambient data (unclassifiable areas), and

(3) have ambient air quality levels better

than the NAAQS (attainment areas). In

1978, the EPA published the original list

of all area designations pursuant to

section 107(d)(2) (commonly referred to
13334 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The EPA did not promulgate new PM–10

increments simultaneously with the promulgation

of the PM–10 NAAQS. Under section 166(b) of the

Act, EPA is authorized to promulgate new

increments ‘‘not more than 2 years after the date of

promulgation of * * * standards.’’ Consequently,

EPA temporarily retained the TSP increments, as

well as the section 107 areas for TSP.

2 It should be noted that 40 CFR part 81 does not

presently list all section 107 areas for PM–10. Only

those areas designated ‘‘nonattainment’’ appear in

the State listings. This is because under the listings

published by EPA in the Federal Register on

November 6, 1991, EPA’s primary objective was to

identify nonattainment areas designated as such by

operation of law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments. For States having no PM–10

nonattainment areas designated by operation of law,

EPA did not include a new PM–10 listing.

Nevertheless, section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) mandates that

all areas not designated nonattainment for PM–10

by operation of law, are designated unclassifiable.

The PM–10 increments apply in any area

designated unclassifiable for PM–10.

3Note: 40 CFR 52.343(a)(10) was redesignated as

40 CFR 52.343(a)(4) on August 18, 1994 (59 FR

42506), and 40 CFR 52.343(a)(4) was redesignated

as 40 CFR 52.343(a)(3) on January 21, 1997 (62 FR

2914).

as ‘‘section 107 areas’’), including those

designations for TSP, in 40 CFR part 81.

One of the purposes stated in the Act

for the section 107 areas is for

implementation of the statutory

requirements for PSD. The PSD

provisions of part C of the Act generally

apply in all section 107 areas that are

designated attainment or unclassifiable

[40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)]. Under the PSD

program, the air quality in an attainment

or unclassifiable area is not allowed to

deteriorate beyond prescribed maximum

allowable increases in pollutant

concentrations (i.e., increments).

EPA revised the primary and

secondary NAAQS for particular matter

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634),

eliminating TSP as the indicator for the

NAAQS and replacing it with the PM–

10 indicator. However, EPA did not

delete the section 107 areas for TSP

listed in 40 CFR part 81 at that time

because there were no increments for

PM–10 promulgated at that time.1 States

were required to continue implementing

the TSP increments in order to prevent

significant deterioration of particulate

matter air quality until the PM–10

increments replaced the TSP

increments. With the State adoption and

implementation of the PM–10

increments becoming effective, the TSP

area designations generally serve no

useful purpose relative to the PSD

program. Instead, the PM–10 area

designations now serve to properly

identify those areas where air quality is

better than the NAAQS, i.e., ‘‘PSD

areas,’’ and to provide the geographic

link necessary for implementation of the

PM–10 increments.2

Thus, in the June 3, 1993 Federal

Register notice in which EPA

promulgated the PM–10 increments,

EPA stated that, for States with SIPapproved PSD programs, EPA would

delete the TSP area designations at the

same time EPA approves the revision to

a State’s plan incorporating the PM–10

increments. In deleting any State’s TSP

area designations, EPA must ensure that

the deletion of those designations will

not result in a relaxation of any control

measures that ultimately protect the

PM–10 NAAQS.

The following TSP nonattainment

areas in Colorado are included in

nonattainment designations for PM–10:

the Boulder Urbanized Area and the

Denver Urbanized Area. The State has

adopted a PM–10 SIP for the Denver

Metropolitan area (which includes the

Boulder area). Thus, EPA believes it is

appropriate at this time to delete the

TSP area designations for these areas.

Colorado has three areas listed in 40

CFR part 81 as nonattainment for the

TSP standards but which are not

designated nonattainment for PM–10:

the cities of Fort Collins and Greeley,

the Colorado Springs 3–C urbanized

area, and the Grand Junction urbanized

area. EPA has reviewed the existing

approved particulate matter control

strategies for these areas and has

determined that the deletion of the TSP

nonattainment status for these areas will

not result in a relaxation of any controls

that would adversely impact the PM–10

NAAQS. Consequently, EPA believes it

is appropriate at this time to delete the

TSP designations for these areas. If the

State subsequently revises any of the

particulate matter control strategies

currently in the SIP for these areas, it

must submit a SIP revision to EPA for

approval that must meet all applicable

Federal requirements.

As stated above, the State has adopted

adequate provisions in its PSD program

for the implementation of the PM–10

increments. Therefore, EPA is deleting

the State’s existing TSP designation

table in 40 CFR 81.306.

c. Other Administrative Revisions. As

discussed above, the State made other

minor administrative revisions to

Regulation No. 3 in its August 1, 1996

SIP submittal. These revisions included

correction of errors in the numbering of

certain sections, errors which occurred

in the printing of Regulation No. 3 in

the Code of Colorado Regulations, and

other minor deficiencies. Specifically in

Part A of Regulation No. 3, the State

revised the numbering of the definitions

in Section I.B., Section I.B.36., Sections

IV.B. and C., and Section V.C.1.

Regarding Section I.B. which contains

the definitions applicable to Regulation

No. 3, EPA noted additional numbering

errors in this section which the State

needs to correct. Therefore, EPA is not

approving the revisions to this section at

this time, with the exception of those

specific definitions that were revised to

reflect the PM–10 PSD increments (as

discussed in Section II.A.2.a. of this

document).

EPA believes it is appropriate to

approve all of the other minor revisions

at this time, with the exception of

Section IV.C. of Part A. This provision

in this section, which allows for

emissions trading under a construction

or title V operating permit cap, was

originally submitted as a revision to the

SIP on November 12, 1993 along with

many other revisions to Regulation No.

3. In EPA’s January 21, 1997 Federal

Register promulgating action on the

State’s November 12, 1993 submittal,

EPA did not take action on Section IV.C.

of Part A of Regulation No. 3. For the

reasons stated in that Federal Register,

EPA is not taking action on the revisions

to Section IV.C. in this action. (See 62

FR 2911 for further details.)

B. Amendment to 40 CFR 52.343(a)(3)

On September 2, 1986, EPA approved

Colorado’s PSD regulations (51 FR

31125). In that approval, EPA indicated

that the Federal PSD regulations would

remain in effect for sources that had

previously received PSD permits from

EPA. On June 15, 1987, EPA issued a

correction notice regarding the approval

of Colorado’s PSD regulations (52 FR

22638). In that correction notice, EPA

revised language in 40 CFR

52.343(a)(10) 3 to clarify that EPA was

retaining PSD authority not only for

sources which received a PSD permit

from EPA before September 2, 1986, but

also for sources that constructed before

EPA’s September 2, 1986 approval of

Colorado’s PSD regulations. EPA

explained that this correction was

needed because Colorado’s PSD

regulations allowed Colorado to issue

PSD permits only to sources that

applied for a permit after EPA’s

approval of Colorado’s PSD program.

EPA further explained that neither EPA

nor Colorado intended to create any

gaps in the PSD program through EPA

approval of the Colorado regulations.

The approval language in the June 15,

1987 correction notice has led to some

confusion. The correction notice

focused only on the status of sources as

of the date of approval of Colorado’s

PSD program and did not consider

future source changes or permit

applications. For example, major

sources subject to EPA’s PSD

regulations may have constructed or

modified before September 2, 1986

without applying for a PSD permit. If
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13335

4EPA is designating the PM–10 areas as

unclassifiable, rather than attainment, at this time

to be consistent with section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act

which stated that any area which was not initially

designated as nonattainment for PM–10 shall be

designated unclassifiable. EPA will consider

redesignating these areas to ‘‘attainment’’ status at

a later date. Both ‘‘unclassifiable’’ and ‘‘attainment’’

areas have the same status for PSD purposes.

these sources were to apply to Colorado

for a PSD permit after September 2,

1986, Colorado would have authority

under Colorado law to issue PSD

permits to such sources. However, the

language in EPA’s June 15, 1987

correction notice might be read to

require that EPA issue permits to such

sources. This would be contrary to

EPA’s intent in issuing the correction

notice which was to eliminate any gaps

in coverage, not to retain authority in

instances in which Colorado has the

authority to issue PSD permits under

State law. In addition, the correction

notice did not address the question of

which agency should issue permits to

sources that received permits from EPA

before September 2, 1986, but that seek

a major modification after September 2,

1986. Similar questions pertain to major

sources which constructed before EPA’s

PSD program became effective, and then

later seek a major modification.

Accordingly, EPA believes it is

appropriate to correct the language

currently in 40 CFR 52.343(a)(3) to

clarify that the retention of EPA’s PSD

authority applies only to sources which

constructed prior to September 2, 1986

and which have not otherwise subjected

themselves to Colorado’s PSD

permitting regulations after September

2, 1986, either through application to

Colorado for a PSD permit (in the case

of those sources which improperly

constructed without obtaining a PSD

permit) or through application to

Colorado for a major modification to the

source. This correction is consistent

with the manner in which EPA and

Colorado have been implementing the

PSD program within Colorado. EPA is

making this correction under section

110(k)(6) of the Act.

Note that this action does not alter

Colorado’s PSD permitting jurisdiction.

The State does not have authority to

issue PSD permits to new or modified

stationary sources proposing to locate

within the exterior boundaries of Indian

reservations or on Indian lands; EPA

retains PSD permitting authority for

such sources. [See 40 CFR 52.343(a)(1)

& (2).]

III. Final Action

Based on the review and justification

provided in this document and the

accompanying Technical Support

Document (TSD), EPA is approving the

SIP revision regarding PSD permitting

submitted by the State of Colorado on

August 1, 1996. However, for the

reasons discussed above, EPA is not

acting on the minor administrative

changes made to Section I.B. of Part A

of Regulation No. 3, nor is EPA acting

on Section IV.C. of Part A of Regulation

No. 3 at this time. In addition, EPA is

deleting Colorado’s TSP area

designation table in 40 CFR 81.306, and

EPA is revising the PM–10 area

designation table in 40 CFR 81.306 to

add the following areas designated as

unclassifiable for PM–10: 4 Air Quality

Control Region (AQCR) 1, AQCR 2,

AQCR 3 (excluding the Denver

Metropolitan moderate PM–10

nonattainment area), AQCR 4, AQCR 5,

AQCR 6 (excluding the Lamar moderate

PM–10 nonattainment area), AQCR 7,

AQCR 8, AQCR 9 (excluding the Pagosa

Springs moderate PM–10 nonattainment

area), AQCR 10 (excluding the Telluride

moderate PM–10 nonattainment area),

AQCR 11, AQCR 12 (excluding the

Aspen/Pitkin County and Steamboat

Springs Area Airshed moderate PM–10

nonattainment areas), and AQCR 13

(excluding the Canon City moderate

PM–10 nonattainment area). Since these

AQCRs encompass the entire State, EPA

is deleting the ‘‘Rest of State’’ PM–10

area.

EPA is also amending the language in

40 CFR 52.343(a)(3) to further clarify

which sources EPA retains PSD

permitting authority over in the State of

Colorado.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective May 19, 1997

unless, by April 21, 1997, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective on May 19, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to a SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

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

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the
13336 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

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

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 19, 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 must be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements (see section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: February 27, 1997.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Title 40, chapter I of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for parts 52

and 81 continue to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

2. Section 52.320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(81) to read as

follows:

§ 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(81) On August 1, 1996, the Governor

of Colorado submitted revisions to the

prevention of significant deterioration

regulations in Regulation No. 3 to

incorporate changes in the Federal PSD

permitting regulations for PM–10

increments and to make other minor

administrative revisions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Regulation No. 3, Air Contaminant

Emissions Notices, 5 CCR 1001–5,

revisions adopted 8/17/95, effective 10/

30/95, as follows: Part A, Section I.B., as

follows: the definition of ‘‘baseline

area’’ in subsection 10, the definition of

‘‘minor source baseline date’’ in

subsection 35, and the definition of ‘‘net

emissions increase’’ in subsection 37;

Part A: Sections IV.B., V.C.1., and

V.D.11.c.; Part B: Sections IV.D.3.b.(v),

VII.A.1., and X.D.

3. Section 52.343 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.343 Significant deterioration of air

quality.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(3) Sources which constructed prior to

September 2, 1986 and which have not

otherwise subjected themselves to

Colorado’s PSD permitting regulations

after September 2, 1986, either through

application to Colorado for a PSD

permit (in the case of those sources

which improperly constructed without

obtaining a PSD permit) or through

application to Colorado for a major

modification to the source.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

4. Section 81.306 is amended by

removing the table for ‘‘Colorado-TSP’’

and by removing the entry in the table

for ‘‘Colorado-PM–10’’ for ‘‘Rest of

State.’’

5. Section 81.306 is amended by

adding entries at the end of the table for

‘‘Colorado-PM–10’’ for ‘‘AQCR 1’’,

‘‘AQCR 2,’’ ‘‘AQCR 3,’’ ‘‘AQCR 4,’’

‘‘AQCR 5,’’ ‘‘AQCR 6,’’ AQCR 7,’’ AQCR

8,’’ ‘‘AQCR 9,’’ ‘‘AQCR 10,’’ ‘‘AQCR 11,’’

‘‘AQCR 12,’’ and ‘‘AQCR 13’’ to read as

follows:

§ 81.306 Colorado.

* * * * *

COLORADO—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

* * * *

AQCR 1 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 2 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 3 (excluding the Denver Metropolitan PM–10 nonattainment area) ..... 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 4 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 5 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 6 (excluding the Lamar PM–10 nonattainment area) ............................ 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 7 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 8 ............................................................................................................. 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 9 (excluding the Pagosa Springs PM–10 nonattainment area) ............ 11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 10 (excluding the Telluride PM–10 nonattainment area) ...................... 11/15/95 Unclassifiable

AQCR 11 ........................................................................................................... 11/15/95 Unclassifiable
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13337

COLORADO—PM–10—Continued

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

AQCR 12 (excluding the Aspen/Pitkin County and Steamboat Springs Area

Airshed PM–10 nonattainment areas).

11/15/90 Unclassifiable

AQCR 13 (excluding the Canon City PM–10 nonattainment area) .................. 1/15/90 Unclassifiable

[FR Doc. 97–7096 Filed 3–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300461; FRL–5595–3]

RIN 2070–AC78

Tebufenozide; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for residues of

the insecticide tebufenozide in or on the

raw agricultural commodities sugar beet

roots, sugar beet tops, sugar beet

molasses, sugar beet refined sugar and

sugar beet dried pulp in connection

with EPA’s granting of emergency

exemptions under section 18 of the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act authorizing use of

tebufenozide on sugar beets in

California. This regulation establishes

maximum permissible levels for

residues of tebufenozide on sugar beets.

These tolerances will expire on March

30, 1998.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective March 20, 1997. This entries in

the table expire on March 30, 1998.

Objections and requests for hearings

must be received by EPA on May 19,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300461],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

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

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

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

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the document control number, [OPP–

300461], should be 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 Highway,

Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

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

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [OPP–300461]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Electronic copies of objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Pat Cimino, Registration Division

(7505W), Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail: Sixth Floor, Crystal

Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)

308–8328, e-mail:

cimino.pat@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA,

pursuant to section 408(e) and (l)(6) of

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and

(l)(6), is establishing tolerances for

residues of the insecticide tebufenozide

(benzoic acid, 3,5-dimethyl-1-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)-2-(4-

ethylbenzoyl)hydrazide) in or on sugar

beet roots at 0.3 parts per million (ppm),

sugar beet tops at 0.6 ppm, sugar beet

dried pulp at 6.0 ppm, and sugar beet

molasses and refined sugar at 4.0 ppm.

These tolerances will expire by EPA on

March 30, 1998.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub.L. 104–170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301

et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

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

amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new FFDCA section 408 with a

new safety standard and new

procedures. These activities are

described below and discussed in

greater detail in the final rule

establishing the time-limited tolerance

associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13,

1996)(FRL–5572–9).

New FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i)

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines

‘‘safe’’ to mean that ‘‘there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water, but

does not include occupational exposure.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to

give special consideration to exposure

of infants and children to pesticide

chemical residue in establishing a

tolerance and to ‘‘ensure that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result to infants and children from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue....’’

Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA

to exempt any Federal or State agency

from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA

determines that ‘‘emergency conditions

exist which require such exemption.’’

This provision was not amended by

FQPA. EPA has established regulations

governing such emergency exemptions

in 40 CFR part 166.

FFDCA section 408(l)(6) requires EPA

to establish a time-limited tolerance or

exemption from the requirement for a

tolerance for pesticide chemical

residues in food that will result from the

use of a pesticide under an emergency