15486 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

two sanctions available to the

Administrator: highway funding and

offsets. The 18 month period referred to

in section 179(a) will begin at the time

EPA publishes final notice of this

disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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

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.

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements and

impose any new Federal requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

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 OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action, pertaining to the

disapproval of the District of Columbia

Municipal Regulations Title 20,

Sections 200, 201, 202, 204, 299 and

associated definitions in Section 199,

must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

May 23, 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: February 17, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart J—District of Columbia

2. Section 52.472 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 52.472 Approval status.

* * * * *

(f) Disapproval of revisions to the

District of Columbia State

Implementation Plan, District of

Columbia Municipal Regulations

(DCMR) Title 20, Sections 200, 201, 202,

204 and 299, pertaining to permitting of

sources, and associated definitions in

Section 199 submitted on June 21, 1985

and October 22, 1993 by the Mayor of

the District of Columbia (1985

submittal) and by the Administrator of

the District of Columbia Environmental

Regulation Administration (1993

submittal). The disapproved regulations

include those applicable to major new

and major modified sources wishing to

locate in the District. A new source

review program for such major sources

is required under sections 182 and 184

of the Clean Air Act. There are many

deficiencies in the DCMR permitting

regulations. Some of these deficiencies

are the lack of public notice and

comment procedures for new and

modified sources applying for

construction permits, the existence of a

provision that allows the Mayor to grant

indefinite 1-month temporary permits to

those sources whose permits he/she

determines have been delayed because

of his/her office, the inclusion of a

major source operating permit program,

the inclusion of a minor source

operating permit program that does not

meet Part D requirements of the Act, the

exemption of certain fuel burning

(nitrogen oxide emitting) sources,

incorrect citations of the Clean Air Act,

a provision that allows circumvention of

the offset requirement, and the lack of

the de minimis special modification

provisions required in serious and

severe ozone nonattainment areas

(section 182(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act).

[FR Doc. 95–7243 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4318/R2118; FRL–4943–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Beauveria Bassiana Strain GHA;

Exemption From the Requirement of a

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of Beauveria

bassiana Strain GHA in or on alfalfa,

corn, cotton, potatoes, rapeseed,

safflower, small grain crops, soybeans,

sugarbeets, sunflower, rangeland,

improved pastures, and in meat, milk,

or other animal products from livestock

grazed on treated rangeland or improved

pastures when applied to growing crops

in accordance with good agricultural

practices. Mycotech Corp. requested this

exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [PP 4F4318/R2118], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. A copy of any objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk should be identified by the

document control number and

submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

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

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15487

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch, OPP

(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,

Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Patricia A. Cimino, Biopesticides

and Pollution Prevention Division

(7501W), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

(703)–308–7035; e-mail:

Cimino.Patricia@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of July 13, 1994 (59 FR

35718), EPA issued a notice that

Mycotech Corp., 630 Utah Drive, P.O.

Box 4109, Butte, MT 59701, had

submitted pesticide petition (PP)

4F4318 proposing to amend 40 CFR part

180 by establishing a regulation

pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to exempt from the

requirement of a tolerance the residues

of the microbial pest control agent

Beauvaria bassiana Strain GHA in or on

alfalfa, corn, cotton, potatoes, rapeseed,

safflower, small grain crops, soybeans,

sugarbeets, sunflower, rangeland,

improved pastures, and in meat, milk,

or other animal products from livestock

grazed on treated rangeland or improved

pastures when applied to growing crops

in accordance with good agricultural

practices. In the Federal Register of

February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7543), EPA

issued a notice of amendment to PP

4F4318 to establish a regulation to

exempt from the requirement of a

tolerance residues of the insecticide

Beauvaria bassiana Strain GHA in or on

all raw agricultural commodities.

There were no comments received in

response to the notices of filing.

Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA is

naturally occurring and was originally

isolated from indigenous grasshoppers.

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 for

Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA in or on

rangeland, improved pastures, meat,

milk, or other animal products from

livestock grazed on treated rangeland or

improved pastures, alfalfa, corn,

potatoes, rapeseed, safflower, small

grain crops, soybeans, sugarbeets, and

sunflower include an acute oral

toxicity/pathogenicity study, an acute

dermal toxicity study, an acute

pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity study,

an acute intraperitoneal toxicity/

pathogenicity study, and primary eye

irritation studies.

The results of these studies indicated

that the organism was not toxic to test

animals when administered via oral,

dermal, pulmonary, or intraperitoneal

routes.

The active ingredient was not

infective or pathogenic to the test

animals in any of the studies. Ocular

lesions were observed in the eye

irritation study with the technical-grade

active ingredient (TGAI) and resulted in

a Toxicity Category I rating. Minimal

ocular irritation was observed in the eye

irritation studies done with oil-flowable

and emulsifiable suspension end-use

product formulations indicating that the

lesions observed in the eye irritation test

done with TGAI may have been due to

physical effects of the TGAI. Slight skin

irritation persisted in test animals

treated with the TGAI resulting in a

Toxicity Category III rating. There have

been no reports of hypersensitivity

related to the active ingredient. All of

the toxicity studies submitted are

considered acceptable.

The toxicology data provided are

sufficient to demonstrate that there are

no foreseeable human health hazards

likely to arise from use of Beauveria

bassiana Strain GHA on the requested

food and feed commodities when

applied during the growing season in

accordance with good agricultural

practices.

Acceptable daily intake (ADI) and

maximum permissible intake (MPI)

considerations are not relevant to this

petition because the data submitted

demonstrated that this biological control

agent is not toxic to humans by dietary

exposure. No enforcement actions are

expected based on a level of residues in

food. Therefore, the requirement for an

analytical method for enforcement

purposes is not applicable to this

exemption request. This is the first

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for this microbial pest control

agent.

Based on the information considered,

the Agency concludes that

establishment of a tolerance is not

necessary to protect the public health.

Therefore, the exmeption from 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

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

the order defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in a rule (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially altering

the budgetary impacts of entitlement,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, EPA has determined that this

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).
15488 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 10, 1995.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In subpart D, by adding new

§ 180.1146, to read as follows:

§ 180.1146 Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

Beauveria bassiana Strain GHA is

exempted from the requirement of a

tolerance in or on alfalfa, corn, cotton,

potatoes, rapeseed, safflower, small

grain crops, soybeans, sugarbeets,

sunflower, rangeland, and improved

pastures and in meat, milk, or other

animal products from livestock grazed

on treated rangeland or improved

pastures when applied to growing crops

according to good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 95–7452 Filed 3–22–95; 12:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 5F4427/R2118; FRL–4942–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Chlorpyrifos; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes a

time-limited tolerance for residues of

the insecticide chlorpyrifos [O,O-diethyl

O-(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl)

phosphorothioate] in or on the raw

agricultural commodities oats and

barley when blended together in a

mixture containing not more than 97%

oats and not less than 3% barley.

General Mills requested this regulation

to establish the maximum permissible

level for residues of the insecticide in or

on the commodities.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [PP 5F4427/R2118], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. A copy of any objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk should be identified by the

document control number and

submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

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

Davis 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: Dennis H. Edwards, Product

Manager (PM) 19, Registration Division

(7505C), Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Rm. 207, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)–305–

6386; e-mail:

Edwards.Dennis@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of February 8, 1995 (60

FR 7509), EPA issued a proposed rule

that gave notice that the General Mills

Co. had submitted pesticide petition

(PP) 5F4427 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

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

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

amend 40 CFR 180.342 by establishing

a tolerance for residues of the

insecticide chlorpyrifos in or on the raw

agricultural commodity oats at 15 ppm,

provided that such tolerance applies

only to oats that were treated postharvest with chlorpyrifos on or before

June 15, 1994; that such tolerance

applies only to oats to be used as animal

feed or as a constituent of animal feed;

that, notwithstanding any other

provision of law or regulation, this

tolerance does not authorize the

presence of residues of chlorpyrifos in

any human food item made from such

treated oats, other than residues

resulting from the use of the oats for

animal feed purposes; and that such

tolerance expires on December 31, 1996.

To ensure that the oats would be

unacceptable for human food

production, General Mills stated that

they would be blended to include not

less than 3% barley and 97% oats.

Accordingly, the definition of the raw

agricultural commodity in the petition

was amended to ‘‘oats and barley when

blended together in a mixture

containing 97% oats and 3% barley.’’

There were two comments received in

response to the proposed rule. General

Mills requested that the tolerance

expression be changed to specify a

minimum barley content and a

maximum oat content. EPA has

determined that the purpose of the

blending would continue to be served

by this change and has no objection to

the request. The definition of the raw

agricultural commodity in the rule is

amended to ‘‘oats and barley when

blended together in a mixture

containing not more than 97% oats and

not less than 3% barley.’’

The second comment was received

from Michael A. Mentuck, president of

Michael A. Mentuck & Associates, Inc.,

as an interested party and on behalf of

one of the interested insurance

companies to the circumstances of the

petition. He suggested that there is the

possibility that the oats containing

chlorpyrifos would be acceptable in

some foreign countries having

appropriate tolerances that would allow

the oats to be used as human food, and

that the potential for export should be

investigated. Alternatively, he suggested

that the oats could be limited to use as

animal feed in this country by spraying

the oats with a dye, thus eliminating the

additional expense of blending them

with barley.

EPA has decided not to modify the

proposed tolerances as suggested by Mr.

Mentuck because of enforcement

concerns with his suggestions. As to his

export proposal, EPA believes it would

be difficult to ensure that the

adulterated oats, while still in shipment

in this country, would not be diverted

to domestic, human food use. Blending

the oats with barley is a straightforward

and effective way of ensuring that the

oats will not be used as human food.

EPA has further concern about the use

of a dye. Dyes are required for use on

seed that is treated with a pesticide, the

dye being an indicator that the seed is

only to be used for growing crops, not

for food or feed. To allow the use of a

dye in the present situation could cloud

the distinction between seed use and

food or feed use. EPA has no supporting

information that the dyed oats would be

considered acceptable for feed use only

and would not be used as human food.

The data submitted on the proposal

and other relevant material have been

evaluated and discussed in the

proposed rule. Based on the data and

information considered, the Agency

concludes that the tolerance will protect

the public health. Therefore, the

tolerance is established as set forth

below.