Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26463

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

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

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under 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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the 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, pertaining to revisions to

Maryland’s definition of the term

‘‘major stationary source of VOC,’’ must

be filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

July 13, 1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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 et seq.

Subpart V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(128) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(128) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

12, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 12, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions and

deletions to Maryland’s State

Implementation Plan, pertaining to

volatile organic compound regulations

in Maryland’s air quality regulations,

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.

(B) Revisions to COMAR

26.11.19.01B(4), definition of the term

‘‘Major stationary source of VOC,’’

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on April 13, 1995, and

effective on May 8, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of the July 12, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.01B(4), definition of

the term ‘‘Major stationary source of

VOC.’’

[FR Doc. 98–12719 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6001–3]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants;

Perchloroethylene Air Emission

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities;

State of California; South Coast Air

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and through

the California Air Resources Board, the

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) requested approval

to implement and enforce its ‘‘Rule

1421: Control of Perchloroethylene

Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems’’

(Rule 1421) in place of the ‘‘National

Perchloroethylene Air Emission

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities’’

(dry cleaning NESHAP) for area sources

under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

has reviewed this request and has found

that it satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for approval. Thus,

EPA is hereby granting SCAQMD the

authority to implement and enforce

Rule 1421 in place of the dry cleaning

NESHAP for area sources under

SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13,

1998 without further notice, unless EPA

receives relevant adverse comments by

June 12, 1998. If EPA receives such
26464 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1The State has recently changed the names and

boundaries of the air basins located within the

Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Management

Area. Pursuant to State regulation the CoachellaSan Jacinto Planning Area is now part of the Salton

Sea Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. § 60114); the

Victor Valley/Barstow region in San Bernardino

County and Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles

County is a part of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17

Cal. Code. Reg. § 60109). In addition, in 1996 the

California Legislature established a new local air

agency, the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District, to have the responsibility for local air

pollution planning and measures in the Antelope

Valley Region (California Health & Safety Code

§ 40106).

comment, then it will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 13,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Andrew Steckel at the EPA

Region IX office listed below. Copies of

SCAQMD’s request for approval are

available for public inspection at the

following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, California 94105–3901.

Docket # A–96–25.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, 2020 ‘‘L’’

Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,

California 95812–2815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, California 94105–

3901, (415) 744–1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On September 22, 1993, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

promulgated the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for perchloroethylene dry

cleaning facilities (see 58 FR 49354),

which was codified in 40 CFR Part 63,

Subpart M, ‘‘National Perchloroethylene

Air Emission Standards for Dry

Cleaning Facilities’’ (dry cleaning

NESHAP). On May 21, 1996, EPA

approved the California Air Resources

Board’s (CARB) request to implement

and enforce section 93109 of Title 17 of

the California Code of Regulations,

‘‘Airborne Toxic Control Measure for

Emissions of Perchloroethylene from

Dry Cleaning Operations’’ (dry cleaning

ATCM), in place of the dry cleaning

NESHAP for area sources (see 61 FR

25397). This approval became effective

on June 20, 1996.

Thus, under Federal law, from

September 22, 1993, to June 20, 1996,

all dry cleaning facilities located within

the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) that used perchloroethylene

were subject to and required to comply

with the dry cleaning NESHAP. Since

June 20, 1996, all such dry cleaning

facilities that also qualify as area

sources are subject to the Federallyapproved dry cleaning ATCM; major

sources, as defined by the dry cleaning

NESHAP, remain subject to the dry

cleaning NESHAP and the Clean Air Act

(CAA) Title V operating permit program.

On November 13, 1997, EPA received,

through CARB, SCAQMD’s request for

approval to implement and enforce its

June 13, 1997, revision of ‘‘Rule 1421:

Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions

from Dry Cleaning Operations’’ (Rule

1421), as the Federally-enforceable

standard for area sources under

SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. SCAQMD’s

request, however, does not include the

authority to determine equivalent

emission control technology for dry

cleaning facilities in place of 40 CFR

63.325. This Federal Register action for

the SCAQMD excludes the Los Angeles

County portion of the Southeast Desert

Air Quality Management Area,

otherwise known as the Antelope Valley

Region in Los Angeles County, which is

now under the jurisdiction of the

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District as of July 1, 1997.1

II. EPA Action

A. SCAQMD’s Dry Cleaning Rule

Under CAA section 112(l), EPA may

approve state or local rules or programs

to be implemented and enforced in

place of certain otherwise applicable

CAA section 112 Federal rules, emission

standards, or requirements. The Federal

regulations governing EPA’s approval of

state and local rules or programs under

section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR Part

63, Subpart E (see 58 FR 62262, dated

November 26, 1993). Under these

regulations, a local air pollution control

agency has the option to request EPA’s

approval to substitute a local rule for the

applicable Federal rule. Upon approval,

the local agency is given the authority

to implement and enforce its rule in

place of the otherwise applicable

Federal rule. To receive EPA approval

using this option, the requirements of 40

CFR 63.91 and 63.93 must be met.

After reviewing the request for

approval of SCAQMD’s Rule 1421, EPA

has determined that this request meets

all the requirements necessary to qualify

for approval under CAA section 112(l)

and 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93.

Accordingly, with the exception of the

dry cleaning NESHAP provisions

discussed in sections II.A.1 and II.A.2

below, as of the effective date of this

action, SCAQMD’s Rule 1421 is the

Federally-enforceable standard for area

sources under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction.

This rule will be enforceable by the EPA

and citizens under the CAA. Although

SCAQMD now has primary

implementation and enforcement

responsibility, EPA retains the right,

pursuant to CAA section 112(l)(7), to

enforce any applicable emission

standard or requirement under CAA

section 112.

1. Major Dry Cleaning Sources

Under the dry cleaning NESHAP, dry

cleaning facilities are divided between

major sources and area sources.

SCAQMD’s request for approval

included only those provisions of the

dry cleaning NESHAP that apply to area

sources. Thus, dry cleaning facilities

using perchloroethylene that qualify as

major sources, as defined by the dry

cleaning NESHAP, remain subject to the

dry cleaning NESHAP and the CAA

Title V operating permit program.

2. Authority to Determine Equivalent

Emission Control Technology for Dry

Cleaning Facilities

Under the dry cleaning NESHAP, any

person may petition the EPA

Administrator for a determination that

the use of certain equipment or

procedures is equivalent to the

standards contained in the dry cleaning

NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.325). In its

request, SCAQMD did not seek approval

for the provisions in Rule 1421 that

would allow for the use of alternative

emission control technology without

previous approval from EPA (i.e., Rule

1421(c)(17), (d)(3)(A)(v), (d)(4)(B)(ii)(III),

and (j)). A source seeking permission to

use an alternative means of emission

limitation under CAA section 112(h)(3)

must receive approval, after notice and

opportunity for comment, from EPA

before using such alternative means of

emission limitation for the purpose of

complying with CAA section 112.

B. California’s Authorities to Implement

and Enforce CAA Section 112 Standards

1. Penalty Authorities

As part of its request for approval of

the dry cleaning ATCM, CARB

submitted a finding by California’s

Attorney General stating that ‘‘State law

provides civil and criminal enforcement

authority consistent with [40 CFR]

63.91(b)(1)(i), 63.91(b)(6)(i), and 70.11,

including authority to recover penalties
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26465

and fines in a maximum amount of not

less than $10,000 per day per violation

* * *’’ [emphasis added]. In accordance

with this finding, EPA understands that

the California Attorney General

interprets section 39674 and the

applicable sections of Division 26, Part

4, Chapter 4, Article 3 (‘‘Penalties’’) of

the California Health and Safety Code as

allowing the collection of penalties for

multiple violations per day. In addition,

EPA also understands that the California

Attorney General interprets section

42400(c)(2) of the California Health and

Safety Code as allowing for, among

other things, criminal penalties for

knowingly rendering inaccurate any

monitoring method required by a toxic

air contaminant rule, regulation, or

permit.

As stated in section II.A above, EPA

retains the right, pursuant to CAA

section 112(l)(7), to enforce any

applicable emission standard or

requirement under CAA section 112,

including the authority to seek civil and

criminal penalties up to the maximum

amounts specified in CAA section 113.

2. Variances

SCAQMD’s Rule 504 and Division 26,

Part 4, Chapter 4, Articles 2 and 2.5 of

the California Health and Safety Code

provide for the granting of variances

under certain circumstances. EPA

regards these provisions as wholly

external to SCAQMD’s request for

approval to implement and enforce a

CAA section 112 program or rule and,

consequently, is proposing to take no

action on these provisions of state or

local law. EPA does not recognize the

ability of a state or local agency who has

received delegation of a CAA section

112 program or rule to grant relief from

the duty to comply with such Federallyenforceable program or rule, except

where such relief is granted in

accordance with procedures allowed

under CAA section 112. As stated

above, EPA retains the right, pursuant to

CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any

applicable emission standard or

requirement under CAA section 112.

Similarly, section 39666(f) of the

California Health and Safety Code

allows local agencies to approve

alternative methods from those required

in the ATCMs, but only as long as such

approvals are consistent with the CAA.

As mentioned in section II.A.2 above, a

source seeking permission to use an

alternative means of emission limitation

under CAA section 112 must also

receive approval, after notice and

opportunity for comment, from EPA

before using such alternative means of

emission limitation for the purpose of

complying with CAA section 112.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. 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.

Approvals under 40 CFR 63.93 do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state or local agency is already

imposing. Therefore, because this

approval does not impose any new

requirements, it does not have a

significant impact on affected small

entities.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under 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.

C. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

D. 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 July 13, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review 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)).

E. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U.S.C. section 7412.

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) California Regulatory

Requirements Applicable to the Air
26466 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Toxics Program, April 6, 1998, IBR

approved for § 63.99(a)(5)(ii) of subpart

E of this part.

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

3. Section 63.99 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) introductory

text and adding paragraph (a)(5)(ii)(C),

to read as follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) Affected sources must comply

with the California Regulatory

Requirements Applicable to the Air

Toxics Program, April 6, 1998

(incorporated by reference as specified

in § 63.14) as described below.

* * * * *

(C) The material incorporated in

Chapter 3 of the California Regulatory

Requirements Applicable to the Air

Toxics Program (South Coast Air

Quality Management District Rule 1421)

pertains to the perchloroethylene dry

cleaning source category in the South

Coast Air Quality Management District,

and has been approved under the

procedures in § 63.93 to be

implemented and enforced in place of

Subpart M—National Perchloroethylene

Air Emission Standards for Dry

Cleaning Facilities, as it applies to area

sources only, as defined in § 63.320(h).

(1) Authorities not delegated.

(i) South Coast Air Quality

Management District is not delegated

the Administrator’s authority to

implement and enforce Rule 1421 in

lieu of those provisions of Subpart M

which apply to major sources, as

defined in § 63.320(g).

Dry cleaning facilities which are

major sources remain subject to Subpart

M.

(ii) South Coast Air Quality

Management District is not delegated

the Administrator’s authority of § 63.325

to determine equivalency of emissions

control technologies. Any source

seeking permission to use an alternative

means of emission limitation, under

sections (c)(17), (d)(3)(A)(v),

(d)(4)(B)(ii)(III), and (j) of Rule 1421,

must also receive approval from the

Administrator before using such

alternative means of emission limitation

for the purpose of complying with

section 112.

[FR Doc. 98–12430 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300651; FRL–5788–2]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pyriproxyfen; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for residues of

pyriproxyfen in or on citrus fruit, juice,

dried pulp, and oil; pears; and tomatoes.

This action is in response to EPA’s

granting of emergency exemptions

under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the

pesticide on citrus, pears, and tomatoes.

This regulation establishes maximum

permissible levels for residues of

pyriproxyfen in these food and feed

commodities pursuant to section

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

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996

(FQPA). The tolerances will expire and

are revoked on July 31, 1999.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

13, 1998. Objections and requests for

hearings must be received by EPA on or

before July 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300651],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

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

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

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

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300651], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 119, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

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

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300651]. 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:

Telephone numbers and e-mail

addresses: For pyriproxyfen on citrus:

Andrea Beard (703) 308-9356, e-mail:

beard.andrea@epamail.epa.gov; For

pyriproxyfen on pears or tomatoes:

Virginia Dietrich (703) 308-9359, e-mail:

dietrich.virginia@epamail.epa.gov.

Office location (both): Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA. By mail (both): Registration

Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

408(e) and (l)(6) of the FFDCA, 21

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

tolerances for residues of the pesticide

pyriproxyfen, in or on citrus fruit at 0.3

parts per million (ppm), citrus juice and

dried citrus pulp at 1.0 ppm, and citrus

oil at 300 ppm; pears at 0.2 ppm; and

tomatoes at 0.1 ppm. These tolerances

will expire and are revoked on July 31,

1999. EPA will publish a document in

the Federal Register to remove the

revoked tolerances from the Code of

Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The 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 FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et

seq . The FQPA amendments went into

effect immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

These activities are described below and

discussed in greater detail in the final

rule establishing the time-limited

tolerance associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13,

1996) (FRL–5572–9).

New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the

FFDCA allows EPA to establish a