Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17095

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 Clean Air 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 any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

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

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new Federal

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 June 9, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

Max H. Dodson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 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.

2. Section 52.2320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(36) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(36) The Governor of Utah submitted

a revision to Utah’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Visibility

Protection with a letter dated July 25,

1996. The revision was made to add a

new subsection 15.10 to the SIP to

include a policy statement regarding

scenic views which was deleted from

the Utah Air Conservation Regulations.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Utah State Implementation Plan,

Subsection 15.10, Policy of the Air

Conservation Committee Concerning the

Protection of Scenic Views Associated

with Mandatory Class I Areas from

Significant Impairment for Visibility,

adopted on March 26, 1993, and

effective on March 29, 1993.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) A July 25, 1996 letter from

Michael O. Leavitt, Utah Governor, to

Jack McGraw, EPA Region VIII Acting

Regional Administrator, in which it was

communicated, among other things, that

the Utah Air Quality Board deleted

R307–5 from the Utah Air Conservation

Regulations. The deletion was effective

March 29, 1993.

[FR Doc. 97–9108 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN68–2; FRL–5807–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: On February 18, 1997 (62 FR

7157), the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) approved

Indiana’s October 25, 1994, request to

revise the Indiana State Implementation

Plan (SIP) to add or revise definitions in

the SIP’s general provisions, the

applicability criteria of the rule for

malfunctions and, the applicability

criteria for State construction and

operating permits. Also approved were

revisions to Indiana’s construction

permit program including its ‘‘Permit no

defense’’ provision. The USEPA is

withdrawing this final rule because in a

letter dated March 18, 1997, Indiana

informed USEPA that a portion of the

State’s submittal—326 Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) 2–1–

1(b)(1)(h)—is being considered for

removal from the IAC. Further, adverse

comments have been received on

USEPA’s rulemaking action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for
17096 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air Programs Branch, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alvin Choi, Permits and Grants Section,

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone:

(312) 886–3507.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Therefore the amendment to 40 CFR

part 52 which added § 52.770(c)(109) is

withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 97–9146 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300471; FRL–5599–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Imazapyr; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

tolerances for the residues of the

herbicide imazapyr, [2-[4,5-dihydro-4-

methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1Himidazol-2-yl]-3-pyridinecarboxylic

acid], applied as the acid, in or on field

corn. American Cyanamid submitted a

petition to EPA under the Federal Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

requesting the tolerances.

DATES: This rule becomes effective April

9, 1997. Written objections must be

submitted by June 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300471],

may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

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

Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any

objections and hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the docket control number

and submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M. St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

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 objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to :

opp-docket@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 in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [OPP–300471]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Electronic copies of objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found in

Unit IX of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

Mail: Philip V. Errico, Product Manager

(PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location, telephone number and

e-mail address: Rm. 241, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202. (703) 305–6027; e-mail:

errico.philip@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of December 12, 1996

(61 FR 66658)(FRL–5576–9) EPA issued

a notice announcing that American

Cyanamid, P.O. Box 400, Princeton, NJ

08543 had submitted pesticide petition

6F4641 which requested that the

Administrator, pursuant to section 408

of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA), and in conformity with

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

of 1996, amend 40 CFR part 180 to

establish tolerances for residues of

imazapyr [2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4(1-

methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-

pyridinecarboxylic acid], applied as the

acid in or on field corn grain, fodder,

and forage at 0.05 ppm. The notice

contained a summary of the petition

prepared by the petitioner, American

Cyanamid, including information and

arguments to support their conclusion

that the petition complied with FQPA.

It was stated in the notice that the

conclusions and arguments were not

EPA’s.

There were no comments received in

response to the notices of filing.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicological data listed

below were considered in support of

these tolerances.

I. Toxicology Profile

1. A battery of acute toxicity studies

placing technical imazapyr in toxicity

category I for eye irritation, category IV

for oral LD50 and primary dermal

irritation, category III for dermal and

inhalation LD50.

2. A 90–day rat feeding study at doses

of 0, 15,000, or 20,000 ppm (males= 0,

1,248, or 1,695 milligrams per kilogram

per day (mg/kg/day); females 0, 1,423,

or 1,784 mg/kg/day) with a no-observedeffect level (NOEL) of 1,695 mg/kg/day

the highest dose tested (HDT).

3. A 21-day rabbit dermal toxicity

study at doses of 0, 100, 200, or 400 mg/

kg/day which showed occasional

statistically significant findings but

these had no consistent pattern of

toxicity. The NOEL was determined to

be 400 mg/kg/day HDT.

4. A 1-year dog chronic toxicity study

at doses of 0, 25, 125, or 250 mg/kg/day.

The NOEL was 250 mg/kg/day HDT.

5. A 2–year rat chronic/

carcinogenicity study at doses of 0,

1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 ppm (males= 0,

49.9, 252.6, or 503 mg/kg/day; females=

0, 64.2, 317.6, or 638.6 mg/kg/day) with

a NOEL of 503 mg/kg/day HDT.

6. An 18–month mouse

carcinogenicity study at doses of 0,

1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 ppm (males= 0,

126, 674, or 1,301 mg/kg/day; females=

0, 151, 776, or 1,639 mg/kg/day) with a

NOEL of 1,301 mg/kg/day HDT.

7. A rat developmental toxicity study

at doses of 0, 100, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/

day. At 1,000 mg/kg/day, the only

clinical sign of toxicity in gravid dams

was salivation. The NOEL for maternal

toxicity is 300 mg/kg/day. There were

no developmental findings in this study

up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day

HDT.

8. A rabbit developmental toxicity

study at doses of 0, 25, 100, or 400 mg/

kg/day with a maternal and

developmental NOEL of 400 mg/kg/day

HDT.

9. A rat two-–generation reproduction

study at dietary concentrations of 0,