Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7453

plan revision is submitted to EPA and

found to be complete.

(b) * * *

(2) Until August 8, 1995, for ozone

nonattainment areas where EPA has

notified the State, MPO, and DOT of the

State’s failure to submit a control

strategy implementation plan revision

required by Clean Air Act sections

182(c)(2)(A) and/or 182(c)(2)(B), failure

to submit an attainment demonstration

for an intrastate moderate ozone

nonattainment area that chose to use the

Urban Airshed Model for such

demonstration, or failure to submit an

attainment demonstration for a

multistate moderate ozone

nonattainment area, the following shall

apply in lieu of the provisions of

paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

(i) The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions are

imposed on the nonattainment area for

such failure under section 179(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act, unless the failure has

been remedied and acknowledged by a

letter from the EPA Regional

Administrator; and

(ii) The consequences described in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be

nullified if such provisions have been

applied as a result of a failure described

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and

paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall

henceforth apply with respect to any

such failure.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) Until August 8, 1995, for the ozone

nonattainment areas described in

paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the

following shall apply in lieu of the

provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this

section:

(i) The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions are

imposed on the nonattainment area

under section 179(b)(1) of the Clean Air

Act for the failures described below,

unless the failure has been remedied

and acknowledged by a letter from the

EPA Regional Administrator, in ozone

nonattainment areas where EPA notifies

the State, MPO, and DOT that any of the

following control strategy

implementation plan revisions are

incomplete:

(A) The implementation plan revision

due November 15, 1994, as required by

Clean Air Act sections 182(c)(2)(A) and/

or 182(c)(2)(B);

(B) The attainment demonstration

required for moderate intrastate ozone

nonattainment areas which chose to use

the Urban Airshed Model for such

demonstration and for multistate

moderate ozone nonattainment areas; or

(C) The VOC reasonable further

progress demonstration due November

15, 1993, as required by Clean Air Act

section 182(b)(1), if EPA notes in its

incompleteness finding as described in

paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section that

the submittal would have been

considered complete with respect to

requirements for emission reductions if

all committed measures had been

submitted in enforceable form as

required by Clean Air Act section

110(a)(2)(A); and

(ii) The consequences described in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be

nullified if such provisions have been

applied as a result of a failure described

in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, and

paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall

henceforth apply with respect to any

such failure.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(4) Until August 8, 1995, for areas

otherwise subject to paragraph (d)(3) of

this section, the conformity lapse

imposed by the final sentence of

paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not

apply. The conformity status of the

transportation plan and TIP shall lapse

on the date that highway sanctions as a

result of the disapproval are imposed on

the nonattainment area under section

179(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, unless

another control strategy implementation

plan revision is submitted to EPA and

found to be complete.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–3003 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH06–2–6229, OH01–2–6230, OH32–2–

6231; FRL–5151–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving a

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for Preble, Columbiana, and

Jefferson County, Ohio as a revision to

Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for ozone.

The revision is based on a request

from the State of Ohio to redesignate

these areas, and approve their

maintenance plans, and on the

supporting data the State submitted.

Under the Clean Air Act, designations

can be changed if sufficient data are

available to warrant such change.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes

effective on March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the requested

redesignation, maintenance plan, and

other materials relating to this

rulemaking are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following addresses: United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard

(AE–17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and

Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR–443), United

States Environmental Protection,

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington,

D.C. 20460. (It is recommended that you

telephone William Jones at (312) 886–

6058, before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Regulation Development

Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE–

17J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–6058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

Section 107(d) of the pre-amended

Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) promulgated the ozone

attainment status for each area of every

State. For the State of Ohio, Preble,

Columbiana, and Jefferson Counties

were designated as nonattainment areas

for ozone. See 43 FR 8962 (March 3,

1978), and 43 FR 45993 (October 5,

1978). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. No. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Pursuant to Section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the

amended CAA, Preble, Jefferson, and

Columbiana Counties retained their

designations of nonattainment for ozone

by operation of law. See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991). At the same time,

Preble and Jefferson Counties were

classified as transitional areas; and

Columbiana County was classified as an

incomplete data area.

The Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) requested that Preble

County be redesignated to attainment in

a letter dated May 23, 1986; and that

Jefferson and Columbiana Counties be

redesignated to attainment in a letter

dated July 14, 1986. On December 20,

1993, the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed to

disapprove the requested

redesignations. See 58 FR 66334. The

public comment period was from

December 20, 1993, to January 19, 1994.

Only one public comment was received

on the proposed rulemaking to

disapprove the redesignations. It was a

January 18, 1994, letter from the State of

Ohio requesting a 90-day extension of
7454 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the comment period. On February 18,

1994, the USEPA extended the comment

period until April 19, 1994. See 59 FR

8150. The OEPA submitted comments

in an April 14, 1994, letter that included

maintenance and contingency plans for

the counties. The results of OEPA’s

public hearing and resulting revision to

the maintenance and contingency plans

are contained in a letter dated August

10, 1994. No other comments were

received during the extended comment

period.

After reviewing Ohio’s April 14, 1994,

and August 10, 1994, submittal, USEPA

published a direct final rulemaking to

approve the redesignation requests on

September 21, 1994. See 59 FR 48395.

At the same time USEPA published a

proposed rulemaking, see 59 FR 48416,

to approve the requests, in the event

that adverse public comments were

received. Adverse comments were

received and a notice was published to

remove the direct final rulemaking, but

not the proposed rulemaking.

I. Summary of Comments and

Responses

USEPA has considered the adverse

comments received and has decided to

proceed with formal action approving

the redesignations. A summary of

adverse comments submitted in

response to the September 21, 1994

proposed rulemaking (59 FR 48416) and

responses to these comments is

provided below. All of the adverse

comments received were made by

Pollution Probe.

Comment: There remain a number of

important questions and concerns with

regard to the long-range transport of

ozone and ozone precursors across the

U.S.-Canada border. This particular

redesignation request by the State of

Ohio is one of a number of requests

which may cumulatively have a very

significant impact on our future air

quality. The commentor also questioned

whether the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency had evaluated the

impact of Oxides of nitrogen (NOX)/

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emissions from Ohio sources on

downwind regions in Canada.

Response: In response, the USEPA

notes that the governments of the

United States and Canada are in the

process of developing a joint study of

the transboundary ozone phenomena

under the U.S.-Canada Clean Air

Quality Agreement. It is envisioned that

this regional ozone study will provide

the scientific information necessary to

understand what contributes to ozone

levels in the region, as well as, what

control measures would contribute to

reductions in ozone levels. This new

regional ozone study is a cooperative

effort between the U.S. and Canada.

Should this or other studies provide a

sufficient scientific basis for taking

action in the future, the USEPA will

decide what is an appropriate course of

action. The USEPA may take

appropriate action notwithstanding the

redesignation of these areas in Ohio.

Therefore, the USEPA does not believe

that the contentions regarding

transboundary impact currently provide

a basis for delaying action on these

redesignation requests or disapproving

the redesignations. This is particularly

true since approval of the redesignations

is not expected to result in an increase

in ozone precursor emissions and is not

expected to adversely affect air quality

in Canada. In fact, decreases in both

VOC and NOX emissions from the areas

being redesignated are expected over the

10-year maintenance period. See 59 FR

48396–48397. It should also be noted

that the redesignation does not allow

States to automatically remove control

programs which have contributed to an

area’s attainment of a U.S. National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for any pollutant and that no

previously-implemented control

strategies are being relaxed as part of

these redesignations.

Furthermore, USEPA notes that the

extent of any contribution from these

areas to monitored ozone levels in

Canada cannot be determined with any

degree of certainty on the basis of the

information presently available to the

USEPA. The extent to which emissions

from these areas in Ohio, which are

between 80 and 150 miles from the

Canadian border, contribute to ozone

formation in Canada is highly uncertain,

particularly since winds flowing into

areas in Ontario pass through a number

of urbanized areas in both the U.S. and

Canada. Ozone concentrations in

Canada may be attributable to or

fostered by ozone precursor emissions

generated within Canadian borders. As

a consequence, the USEPA does not

believe that the presently available

information provides any basis for

affecting its decision regarding the

redesignation of these areas in Ohio.

Comment: A growing body of

evidence shows that the negative

impacts to human health and vegetation

do occur at or below 82 parts per billion

(ppb) ozone. While we recognize that

the US NAAQS for ozone is currently

.12 parts per million, and that the

standard is currently being reviewed,

does the air quality monitoring data

submitted by the State show ozone

concentrations exceeding 80 ppb in the

three counties under discussion or in

other sections of the State?

Response: Yes, in Preble, and

Jefferson Counties, and the counties

adjacent to Columbiana County

concentrations above 80 ppb have been

monitored. However, as mentioned by

the commentor, the monitoring data for

these counties show that the counties

are not in violation of the ozone

NAAQS. Also, a revision to the NAAQS

is currently under consideration by the

USEPA. Until any change is made,

however, the USEPA is bound to

implement the provisions of the Act as

they relate to the current standard,

including those relating to designation

and redesignations.

Comment: What were the

assumptions and analyses which led to

the conclusion that total emissions will

decrease in the three Ohio counties

under discussion? Overall oxides of

nitrogen emissions in the United States

are projected to rise after the year 2000,

even if mandatory CAA measures for

stationary and mobile sources are

implemented. We are unfamiliar with

the types of emission reduction

measures that are likely to be carried out

in the United States’ regions designated

‘‘attainment.’’ Future growth is one

important factor which needs

consideration. For example, in southeast

Michigan, forecasters anticipate that an

additional 6 percent growth in

population will, with current trends,

result in a 40 percent increase in vehicle

miles travelled by 2010.

Response: The area source emissions

were projected to grow at the same rate

as the expected population growth. The

population growth rate used for Preble

County is 0.83386 percent per year from

1990 to 1995 and 0.6279 percent per

year from 1995 to 2005. The population

growth rate used for Columbiana and

Jefferson Counties was about 1 percent

per year from 1990 to 2005. The point

source emissions growth was projected

using Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA) earnings data by Standard

Industrial Classification Code (SIC).

This factor varied by SIC but was

generally around 1.1 percent per year.

The mobile source emissions were

projected using the MOBILE5A

emissions model to provide emission

factors for the vehicle mix in the future,

and population data to project the

growth in vehicle miles traveled by

these vehicles. Large decreases occurred

in mobile source emissions in the

counties. Due to the Federal Motor

Vehicle Emissions Control Program

(FMVECP). These decreases resulted in

overall VOC emissions reductions in all

three counties, and overall NOX

emission reductions in Preble, and

Columbiana counties.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 7455

Jefferson county is expected to have a

decrease in NOX emissions from 1990 to

2005 due to the Acid Rain provisions of

the Clean Air Act. This decrease

accounted for most of the reductions in

NOX emissions in Jefferson County. The

emissions estimates were based on a 0.5

lb NOX/Million Btu emissions limit for

the units affected under phase I. This

same limit was estimated for units

expected to be covered under phase II.

The phase I limit is mandated by the

Clean Air Act, but a phase II limit had

not been specified by either the CAA or

USEPA when the redesignation request

was prepared so the same limit was

used as an estimate.

Upon redesignation to attainment,

these areas will be subject to the

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

provisions of the Clean Air Act that

apply to stationary sources of air

pollution. These areas are also subject to

the provisions in their maintenance

plans; so, that if a violation of the

NAAQS occurs, the area would have to

implement a contingency measure to

correct the problem. In addition, these

areas are still subject to the controls

approved into the SIPs and would still

get emission reduction benefits from the

FMVECP.

II. Rulemaking Action

The redesignation requests are

approved as meeting conditions of the

CAA in Section 107(d)(3)(E) for

redesignation.

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 the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the processing

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by an October 4,

1993, memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-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 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 USEPA 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).

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

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 April 10, 1995.

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

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Environmental

protection, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control.

Dated: January 26, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Chapter 1, 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.

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(5) The maintenance plans for the

following counties are approved:

(i) Preble, Columbiana, and Jefferson

Counties.

PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS

FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES—OHIO

1. The authority citation of part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.336 the ozone table is

amended by revising the entries for

Columbiana, Preble, and Jefferson

Counties to read as follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

OHIO—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Columbiana County Area, Columbiana County .............. March 10, 1995 .................. Attainment.

* * * * * * *

Preble County Area, Preble County ............................... March 10, 1995 .................. Attainment.
7456 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

OHIO—OZONE—Continued

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

* * * * * * *

Steubenville Area, Jefferson County .............................. March 10, 1995 .................. Attainment.

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–3072 Filed 2–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4314/R2104; FRL–4932–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene; Exemption

from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA establishes an exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance for

residues of the potato sprout inhibitor

1,4-dimethylnaphthalene from the

postharvest application to potatoes. D-I1-4, Inc., requested this exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective February 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 4F4314/

R2104], 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 request filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and submitted to: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington DC 20450. In

Person, bring copy of objections and

hearing request to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202. Fees accompanying

objections shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

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

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Product

Manager (PM) 22, Registration Division,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 229, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-

5540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice, published in the

Federal Register of March 30, 1994 (59

FR 14854), which announced that D-I-1-

4, Inc., 15401 Cartwright Rd., Boise, ID

83703, had submitted pesticide petition

(PP) 4F4314 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(d), establish an exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance for the

plant growth regulator 1,4-

dimethylnaphthalene for use on

potatoes (post- harvest).

There were no comments received in

response to this notice of filing. The

data submitted in the petition and all

other relevant material have been

evaluated. The toxicological data

considered in support of the exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance

include:

1. A rat acute oral study with an LD50

of 2,730 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg).

2. A rabbit acute dermal study with an

LD50 greater than 2 grams (g)/kg.

3. A rat acute inhalation study with

an LD50 greater than 4.16 mg/Liter (L).

4. A rabbit primary eye irritation

study with moderate irritation that

dissipated by day 14.

5. A rabbit primary dermal irritation

study with moderate irritation that

dissipated by day 14.

6. A guinea pig dermal sensitization

study with no apparent sensitization.

7. An Ames mutagenicity study that

was negative in the presence and

absence of metabolic activation

homogenate.

8. An in vitro test for unscheduled

DNA synthesis in rat liver primary cell

culture that was negative.

9. A in vivo micronucleus assay that

was negative.

10. No hypersensitivity Incidents

were reported.

1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene has been

classified as a biochemical as defined by

40 CFR 158.65. Biochemical pesticides

are distinguished by their unique

nontoxic mode of action, low use

volume, target specificity, and natural

occurrence. 1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene is

naturally occurring in potatoes at levels

between 1 and 10 ppm. When

conditions are right for sprouting, the

potato metabolizes 1,4-

dimethylnaphthalene to a low enough

level so that sprouting can occur. 1,4-

Dimethylnaphthalene is applied to

potatoes at a 2.5 ppm level up to 4

applications as a plant growth regulator

during the storage season, which

generally runs from October to August,

to keep 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene at a

sufficient concentration in the potato to

continue to inhibit sprouting.

The results of the toxicity studies

provided, the low-volume use pattern,

and the fact that use of the product will

not increase levels of 1,4-

dimethylnaphthalene above levels

normally found in potatoes are

sufficient to demonstrate that there are

no foreseeable human health hazards

likely to arise from the use of the

product as a potato sprout inhibitor.

Because no enforcement residue level is

established by this exemption, the

requirement for an analytical method for

enforcement purposes is not applicable

to this exemption request.

1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene is

considered useful for the purposes for

which the exemption is sought. Based

on the information and data considered,

the Agency concludes that the

establishment of a tolerance is not

necessary to protect the public health.

Therefore, the exemption from

requirement of a tolerance is established

as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

and/or request a hearing with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the