Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 22125

regulation 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, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Reporting and record keeping

requirements.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

William C. Early,

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 NN—Pennsylvania

§ 52.2026 [Amended]

2. In § 52.2026, paragraph (f) is

removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 01–10984 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[TN 240–1–200103a; FRL–6974–6]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of the Redesignation of

Shelby County, Tennessee, to

Attainment for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the request

to redesignate Shelby County,

Tennessee, from nonattainment to

attainment for the lead primary national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

The request was submitted on February

15, 2001, by the Memphis and Shelby

County Health Department (MSCHD)

through the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation (TDEC).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

July 2, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by June 4, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Kimberly Bingham at the

EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available at the following

addresses for inspection during normal

business hours:

• Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960.

• Tennessee Air Pollution Control

Board, 9th Floor, L & C Annex, 401

Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee

37243–1531.

• Memphis and Shelby County

Health Department, 814 Jefferson

Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4, Environmental

Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,

Georgia 30303. The telephone number is

(404)562–9038. Ms. Bingham can also

be reached via electronic mail at

bingham.kimberly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) provides for areas to be

designated as attainment,

nonattainment, or unclassifiable with

respect to the lead NAAQS. Governors

are required to submit recommended

designations for areas within their

states. When an area is designated

nonattainment, the state must prepare

and submit a SIP that meets the

requirements of sections 110(a)(2) and

172(c) of the CAA demonstrating how

the area will be brought into attainment.

The EPA designated the portion of

Memphis in Shelby County, Tennessee,

around the Refined Metals, Inc.,

secondary lead smelter as a lead

nonattainment area on January 6, 1992.

This nonattainment designation was

based on lead NAAQS violations

recorded by monitors near the Refined

Metals Corporation facility in 1990 and

1991.

During the second quarter of 1998,

another violation of the lead NAAQS

occurred in the Shelby County

nonattainment area. Subsequently, the

MSCHD issued a notice of violation

giving Refined Metals, Inc., options to

surrender all of its permits or pay a fine

and conduct extensive remodeling of

the facility. Refined Metals, Inc., chose

to surrender all of its permits and

shutdown permanently on December 22,

1998. Since the facility permanently

closed, there has not been any violation

of the lead NAAQS. On February 15,

2001, MSCHD through the State of

Tennessee submitted a request to

redesignate the Shelby County area to

attainment for lead.

II. Analysis of the Redesignation

Request

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, as

amended in 1990, sets forth the

requirements that must be met for a

nonattainment area to be redesignated to

attainment. It states that an area can be

redesignated to attainment if the

following conditions are met.

1. The EPA has determined that the

lead NAAQS has been attained.

2. The State has met all applicable

requirements for the area under section

110 and part D, and the implementation

plan has been fully approved by EPA

under section 110(k).

3. The EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions.

4. The EPA has fully approved a

maintenance plan, including a

contingency plan, for the area under

section 175A.

The following is a description of how

each requirement has been achieved.

1. Attainment of the Lead NAAQS

To demonstrate that the Shelby

County area is in attainment with the

lead NAAQS, MSCHD submitted air

quality data from the third quarter of

1998 through 2000. There has not been

any violation of the lead standard since

Refined Metals, Inc. shutdown on

December 22, 1998. This amount of

monitoring data (more than eight

consecutive quarters at the present time)

without a violation of the lead standard

is adequate to demonstrate attainment of

the lead NAAQS. Modeling may also be

required to redesignate an area to

attainment. The EPA believes that

because there are no lead sources in the

area since Refined Metals, Inc., shut

down, a modeling analysis is not

needed.

2. The State Has Met All Applicable

Requirements for the Area Under

Section 110 and Part D, and the

Implementation Plan Has Been Fully

Approved by EPA Under Section 110(k).

To be redesignated to attainment,

section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that an area

must have met all applicable

requirements of sections 110(k),

110(a)(2), and part D of the CAA. The

EPA has determined that the lead SIP

for the Shelby County area that was

approved on September 20, 2000, meets

22126 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the requirements of sections 110(k),

110(a)(2), and part D of the CAA. For a

more detailed description of how these

requirements were met see the

document published on September 20,

2000, in the Federal Register, (65 FR

56794).

3. Permanent and Enforceable

Improvement in Air Quality

Since the Refined Metals facility, the

sole source of lead emissions in the

Shelby County nonattainment area

surrendered its permits and ceased

operations, there are no permitted

process emissions from the facility or in

the nonattainment area. The Refined

Metals facility has been completely

decontaminated and demolished. Any

future request to operate a secondary

lead smelter on this site or in Shelby

County will have to be approved by

MSCHD and will be subject to

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) permit requirements. The PSD

requirements ensure that a new facility

will not cause any adverse effects to the

air quality in an attainment area.

Consequently, EPA has determined that

the emission reductions in the Shelby

County area are permanent and

enforceable.

4. Maintenance Plan

Section 175(A) of the CAA requires

states that submit a redesignation

request for a nonattainment area under

section 107(d) to include a maintenance

plan to ensure that the attainment of

NAAQS for any pollutant is maintained.

The plan must demonstrate continued

attainment of the applicable NAAQS for

at least ten years after the approval of a

redesignation to attainment. Eight years

after the redesignation, the State must

submit a revised maintenance plan

demonstrating attainment for the ten

years following the initial ten year

period. To provide for the possibility of

future NAAQS violations, the

maintenance plan must contain such

contingency measures as the

Administrator deems necessary to

assure that the State will promptly

correct any violation of the standard

that occurs after redesignation. The

contingency provisions are to include a

requirement that the state will

implement all measures for controlling

the air pollutant of concern that were

contained in the SIP prior to

redesignation.

The MSCHD submitted a maintenance

plan to ensure that the lead NAAQS is

maintained. The maintenance plan for

the Shelby County area, contains the

part C PSD program, a monitoring

network to verify continued attainment,

and a contingency plan.

A. Part C PSD Program

As previously mentioned earlier in

this document, the MSCHD has a fully

approved PSD program. Owners of all

new major sources seeking to relocate in

the Shelby County area must

demonstrate that the proposed new

emissions from those sources will be in

compliance with the lead NAAQS.

B. Monitoring Network

To ensure that the lead NAAQS is

maintained, the MSCHD will continue

to operate two lead monitors located in

the Shelby County area. If future review

of the monitoring site operation results

in a recommendation to alter the current

monitoring network, MSCHD must

obtain EPA approval of the

recommendation.

C. Contingency Plan

With respect to the requirement of

section 175(A) that the contingency

provisions of a maintenance plan

include all control measures previously

contained in the SIP, EPA believes that

the requirement is satisfied in that the

State is carrying forward contingency

measures previously approved in the

lead SIP for Shelby County. In addition,

the EPA does not believe any additional

contingency measures are needed.

Contingency measures would serve no

useful purpose in light of the permanent

closure and dismantling of the Refined

Metals facility and the revocation of its

permit. Moreover, any attempt to reopen

a facility on the same site would trigger

MSCHD’s PSD permitting requirements.

The EPA is approving the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan because it satisfies the

requirements of section 175(A) of the

CAA requirements.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the request to

redesignate Shelby County to a lead

attainment area and the maintenance

plan submitted on February 15, 2001, by

the MSCHD through the State of

Tennessee. The EPA is publishing this

rule without a prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to

approve the SIP revision should the

Agency receive adverse comments. This

rule will be effective July 2, 2001

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

June 4, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period.

Parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time. If no such comments

are received, the public is advised that

this rule will be effective on July 2, 2001

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian Tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 22127

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 18, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory 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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

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 2, 2001.

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

will 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, Lead,

Intergovernmental relation, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 18, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by

revising the entries for Section 1200–3–

22–.03 to read as follows:

§ 52.52220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) EPA approved regulations.

EPA APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject Adoption date EPA approval

date

Federal Register

Notice

*******

Section 1200–3–22–.03 Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee 02/14/01 July 2, 2001 ...... 66 FR 22127

*******

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

2. In § 81.343, the attainment status

table for lead is amended by revising the

designation type and date entry for

Shelby County (part).

§ 81.343 Tennessee.

* * * * *

22128 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 86 / Thursday, May 3, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TENNESSEE-LEAD

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Shelby County (part): Area encompassed by a circle with a 3⁄4 mile radius with center being the

intersection of Castex and Mallory Avenue, Memphis, TN.

July 2, 2001 .................... Attainment ...................... ...........................

*******

[FR Doc. 01–11090 Filed 5–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301119; FRL–6778–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Sucroglycerides; Exemption From the

Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of sucroglycerides

when used as an inert ingredient in or

on growing crops or when applied to

raw agricultural commodities after

harvest. Rhodia Inc., submitted a

petition to EPA under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 requesting an exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance.

This regulation eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level

for residues of sucroglycerides.

DATES: This regulation is effective May

3, 2001. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–301119, must be received

by EPA on or before July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VIII. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301119 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Kathryn Boyle, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: 703–305–6304; and e-mail

address: boyle.kathryn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules, ’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the ‘‘

Federal Register —Environmental

Documents. ’’ You can also go directly

to the Federal Register listings at http:/

/www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–301119. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, and other

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of July 7, 1998

(63 FR 36681) (FRL –5795–6), EPA

issued a notice pursuant to section 408

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

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

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104–170)

announcing the filing of a pesticide

petition (PP) 6E4714 by Rhodia Inc., CN

7500, Cranbury, NJ 08512–7500. This

notice included a summary of the

petition prepared by the petitioner.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR

180.1001(c), be amended by establishing

an exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of

sucroglycerides.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA

allows EPA to establish an exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’