25168 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute, it is not subject to the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

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 for the

Pennsylvania VOC and NOx RACT

Regulation is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Andrew Carlin,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 98–11878 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 156

[OPPTS–00238; FRL–5785–2]

Labeling Requirements for Pesticides;

Respirator Compliance Policy

Statement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH

has developed changes to the

regulations at 42 CFR part 84 that set

forth certification standards for nonpowered air-purifying particulate

respirators. EPA has determined that all

42 CFR part 84 respirators meet or

exceed all 30 CFR part 11 respirator

(hereinafter part 11 and part 84

respirators) requirements, and that

respirators certified under part 84 will

be considered the equivalent of a

respirator certified under part 11. EPA

will allow pesticide handlers to use

either part 11 or part 84 respirators to

satisfy non-powered, air-purifying

respirator requirements for pesticide

applications. The Agency will publish

an amendment to 40 CFR 156.212 to

reflect the NIOSH changes in particulate

respirator designations and a Pesticide

Registration (PR) Notice to direct

registrants on how to modify product

labels.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This document is

effective April 24, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvette Hellyer, Toxics and Pesticides

Enforcement Division (2245A),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: 202–564–4033, E-mail:

hellyer.yvette@epa.gov; or, Judy Smith,

Field and External Affairs Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: 703–305–5621, E-mail:

smith.judy@epa.gov.

I. Background

On July 10, 1995, NIOSH modified its

existing regulation, 30 CFR part 11, and

changed the certification standards for

non-powered, air-purifying particulate

filters. The NIOSH change was made to

update and upgrade certification tests

developed in the 1930’s by the Bureau

of Mines. The new regulation, 42 CFR

part 84, requires that respirators

certified under 42 CFR part 84 undergo

a different test using a more penetrating

particle size than in the past and takes

into account the presence of oil in the

contaminant.

The NIOSH certification changes

require that manufacture and

certification of part 11 respirators cease

on July 10, 1998; however, distributors

and other respiratory protection product

sellers can continue to sell their existing

supplies. In terms of additional NIOSH

certification changes, canister type

respirators that are certified for use with

pesticides will not be made after July

10, 1998. Combination respirators, those

certified for use for paints and

pesticides, will also not be made after

July 10, 1998. Certification requirements

for all other respirator types, such as

powered air-purifying respirators

(PAPR) were transferred from 30 CFR

part 11 to 42 CFR part 84 without

change.

To minimize the impact of the

manufacturing transition from part 11 to

part 84 respirators, all particulate

respirator manufacturers now sell part

84 respirators and are now phasing out

part 11 respirators. Manufacturers

cannot precisely estimate when the

existing supply of part 11 respirators

will be exhausted, but a general

consensus in the industry estimates this

will occur in 3 years.

II. NIOSH Certification Changes and

EPA Determination

NIOSH certifies part 84 respirators

using a more rigorous testing method,

and EPA has determined that part 84

respirators provide at least as much

protection to pesticide handlers,

applicators, and users as part 11

respirators. As a result, a pesticide user

may substitute a part 84 non-powered,

air-purifying particulate respirator for a

part 11 respirator even though the

pesticide product label requires use of a

part 11 respirator, and EPA will not

initiate an enforcement action for

misuse of the product. This substitution

will only be allowed until the pesticide

product label change from part 11 to

part 84 respirator requirements have

been completed. Following the pesticide

product label change to part 84

respirators, this substitution will no

longer apply.

III. Information for Registrants

EPA plans to require label changes for

pesticide products because of the

NIOSH certification changes, and this

will impact pesticide registrants. EPA

will issue a Pesticide Registration (PR)

Notice that will call for registrants to

add 42 CFR part 84 language to the

existing respirator language (30 CFR

part 11) on current product labels. The

Agency also intends to amend 40 CFR

156.212 to incorporate the new NIOSH

designations for dust/mist filtering

respirators and organic vapor-removing

cartridge respirators. The revised rule

will affect the pesticide product labels

with part 11 respirator requirements,

i.e., those requiring either a Mine Safety

and Health Administration (MSHA)/

NIOSH-approved dust filtering

respirator (known as a TC-21C) or a

MSHA/NIOSH-approved organic vapor

removing cartridge respirator with a

prefilter approved for pesticides

(MSHA/NIOSH approval number prefix

TC-23C), and will require the addition

of 42 CFR part 84 language to the

product label.

IV. Information for Pesticide

Applicators

Given that both part 11 or part 84

respirators meet respiratory protection

requirements for pesticide products, the

Agency is confident that allowing

pesticide handlers to use part 84

respirators will assure applicators of an

adequate supply of acceptable

respirators.

V. Compliance and Enforcement

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section

12(a)(2)(G) states that it is unlawful ‘‘to

use any registered pesticide in a manner

inconsistent with its labeling.’’ EPA has

determined that both part 11 or part 84

respirators will provide adequate

protection for users. Therefore, EPA

considers the part 84 respirator to be the

equivalent of part 11 respirators for the

purpose of complying with the label of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 88 /Thursday, May 7, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 25169

pesticide products for applicationrelated activities. EPA will not consider

the substitution of a part 84 for a part

11 respirator a misuse. Furthermore,

EPA requires pesticide handlers,

applicators, and users to comply with

all the requirements of 40 CFR 170.240

regardless of whether the respirator is

part 11 or part 84.

VI. Conclusion

EPA recognizes that part 84

respirators offer applicators equivalent

levels of respiratory protection, and the

supply of part 11 respirators will be

exhausted in the next 1 to 3 years. EPA

also recognizes that pesticide handlers

must have an adequate supply of

respirators that provide adequate

respiratory protection during

application. Effective immediately, EPA

will not find misuse violations against

applicators who use either part 11 or

part 84 respirators to satisfy existing

product labels that require part 11

respirators.

VII. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This action does not impose any

requirements. As such, this action does

not require review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

Executive Order 12866, entitled

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., or Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). For

the same reason, it does not require any

action under Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 12875,

entitled Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR

58093, October 28, 1993), or Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). In addition, since this type of

action does not require any proposal, no

action is needed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq.).

VIII. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply

because this action is not a rule, as that

term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(3).

List of Subjects in Part 156

Environmental protection, Labeling,

Occupational safety and health,

Pesticides and pests, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Jesse Baskerville,

Director, Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement

Division, Office of Regulatory Enforcement

and Policy Assurance.

[FR Doc. 98–12151 Filed 5–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6009–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of deletion of the

Pomona Oaks Residential Wells site and

the Vineland State School site from the

National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces the

deletion of the Pomona Oaks Well

Contamination Site in Pomona, New

Jersey and the Vineland State School

Site in Vineland, New Jersey from the

National Priorities List (NPL).

The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR

part 300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. EPA

and the State of New Jersey have

determined that the sites pose no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, no remedial

measures pursuant to CERCLA are

appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew Westgate, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th

floor, New York, N.Y. 10007–1866, (212)

637–4422.

ADDRESSES: Comprehensive information

about the Pomona Oaks Site is available

for viewing at the Administrative

Record Repository located at Galloway

Township Municipal Building, 300 East

Jimmie Leeds Road, Absecon, New

Jersey 08201, Attn: Mr. Andrew Katz,

Township Manager.

Comprehensive information about the

Vineland State School (Developmental

Center) Site is available for viewing at

the Administrative Record Repository

located at Vineland City Library, 1058

East Landis Ave., Vineland, New Jersey

08360, Attn: Mr. Anthony Agnesino,

Reference Director.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The sites

to be deleted from the NPL are: Pomona

Oaks Well Contamination, Pomona,

New Jersey and the Vineland State

School (Developmental Center),

Vineland, New Jersey.

A Notice of Intent to Delete was

published on July 15, 1996 (61 FR

36858). The closing date for comments

on the Notice of Intent to Delete was

August 14, 1996. There were no

comments received for the Vineland

State School Site; therefore, no

responsiveness summary was prepared.

EPA received two letters from residents

of the Pomona Oaks subdivision. Both

of the residents asked that EPA

reconsider the deletion of the Pomona

Oaks Site based on their belief that the

source of the groundwater

contamination has not been cleaned up

and the once suspected underground

gas tanks are still in the ground. They

also inquired about additional testing of

groundwater. EPA never positively

identified the source of the groundwater

contamination when the problems were

discovered in 1982. Comprehensive

sampling conducted as part of the

Remedial Investigation in 1988 and

afterwards demonstrated that the

contamination was due to a singular

event and had dispersed over time

through natural attenuation and/or

biodegradation. EPA concluded there

was no ongoing source of contamination

in the subdivision based on sampling

conducted in 1990 and 1992.

The commentors expressed concerns

about the health effects from the

exposure to chemicals in their drinking

water. EPA, the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR) as well as the state and local

health departments were involved in

assessing the health effects due to

exposure to benzene in 1982. No acute

effects were noted during the 1982 to

1985 period and no long-term health

effects have been reported.

Finally, the residents asked that the

site remain under investigation. Longterm groundwater monitoring was

included as part of the No Action

Record of Decision.

EPA provided detailed responses to

these comments in a Responsiveness

Summary, which is contained in the

Deletion Docket. The Responsiveness

Summary and entries in the Deletion