1880 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

when certain monies which a

participant pays to, or has withheld by,

an employer for contribution to an

employee benefit plan are ‘‘plan assets’’

for purposes of Title I of the Act is

rescheduled to Thursday, February 22,

1996 and, if necessary, to Friday,

February 23, 1996.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of

January 1996.

Olena Berg,

Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–1136 Filed 1–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE24–1–7156b; FRL–5401–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Delaware Ozone Emission Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Delaware for the purpose of establishing

1990 ozone base year emission

inventories for the Delaware ozone

nonattainment areas. In the Final Rules

section of this Federal Register, EPA is

approving the State’s SIP revisions as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views them as

noncontroversial SIP revisions and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by February 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air

Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the EPA office listed above; and

the Delaware Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control, 89

Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover,

Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Quinto, (215) 597–3164, at the EPA

Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title (Delaware Ozone

Emission Inventory) which is located in

the Rules and Regulations section of this

Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: November 27, 1995.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–921 Filed 1–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[VA25–1; A–1–FRL–5402–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Virginia—

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

disapprove or, in the alternative, to

conditionally approve a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. This revision, consisting of

two parts, establishes a program for

prevention of significant deterioration of

air quality (PSD). The first part includes

Virginia’s regulations and procedures

for a PSD program. The second part

includes amendments to those

regulations submitted as part of the SIP

revision. The intended effect of this

action is to propose disapproval or, in

the alternative, approval of Virginia’s

request to amend its SIP to satisfy

federal new source review requirements

for the preconstruction permitting of

new sources and modifications in

attainment and unclassifiable areas, on

the condition that deficiencies in the

state program are corrected and

submitted within one year of approval.

This action is being taken under the

Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 23, 1996. Public

comments on this document are

requested and will be considered before

taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, and at the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, P.O. Box 10089, Richmond,

Virginia, 23240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

M. Donahue (215) 597–2923, at the EPA

Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a series

of submittals, the Virginia Department

of Air Pollution Control (DAPC), now

known as the Department of

Environmental Quality (VDEQ),

submitted the elements for a revision to

its SIP that would establish a program

for the prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality (PSD) in the

review and permitting of new major

sources and major modifications (the

PSD program). On December 17 and 18,

1992, the VDEQ transmitted a request

for the approval of the Commonwealth’s

regulations for PSD and its ‘‘Procedures

for Implementation of Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air

Quality Program (AQP–11)’’, a nonregulatory procedures document, as a

revision to the Virginia State

Implementation Plan. Specifically, the

December 17, 1992 submittal included

AQP–11, and the December 18, 1992

submittal consisted of Virginia

Regulation for the Control and

Abatement of Air Pollution, § 120–08–

02 Permits—Major Stationary Sources

and Major Modifications Locating in

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Areas. On February 3, 1993, DAPC sent

a Summary of Public Testimony and

Response Thereto in order to satisfy

federal SIP revision completeness

criteria. On February 18, 1993 DAPC

sent Virginia Regulations Appendix L,

also to be included in the SIP revision.

On August 16, 1993 the VDEQ

submitted a supplementary revision to

§ 120–01–01 and 120–08–02 to correct

deficiencies in its earlier PSD

regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 1881

If Virginia’s PSD regulations are

disapproved by EPA the current federal

implementation plan (FIP) for PSD in

Virginia at 40 CFR 52.2451 and the

delegation agreement between EPA and

Virginia will continue to be in effect. If

Virginia’s PSD regulations are approved

by EPA, the state will have authority to

implement and enforce the PSD

program through its SIP, the current FIP

at 40 CFR 52.2451 will be withdrawn,

and the delegation agreement between

EPA and Virginia will be terminated.

Background

On June 19, 1978, EPA promulgated

the PSD regulations of 40 CFR 52.21 (b)

through (w) into the Virginia SIP at 40

CFR 52.2451 and federally implemented

the PSD program in Virginia. As of June

3, 1981, authority for implementation of

the Federal PSD program was delegated

to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and

Virginia began issuing and enforcing

Federal PSD permits. On September 20,

1991, Virginia was granted the authority

to implement and enforce the nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) increment portion of the

federal PSD program.

On June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31636), EPA

promulgated rules which revised the

PSD requirement for particulate matter

(PM). The revised increments for PM

restrict increases in ambient

concentrations of PM–10, which is

defined as particles with an

aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to 10 micrometers. The revisions

affect the regulations of 40 CFR parts 51

and 52 which specify the increments for

PM, and became effective on June 3,

1994. On July 20, 1993 (58 FR 38822),

EPA promulgated rules which revised

the ‘‘Guidelines for Air Quality Models’’

by adding a 1993 supplement to the

Guidelines. The revisions affect the

regulations of 40 CFR parts 51 and 52

which specify the version of the

guidelines, and became effective on

August 19, 1993. Virginia must still

revise its regulations to include the PM–

10 increment and modeling guideline

provisions and submit them as a

revision to the SIP. However, EPA does

not believe that it should delay the

processing of the SIP revisions relating

to PSD which Virginia has already

submitted because of the need for

additional revisions pertaining to PM–

10 and modelling guidelines.

EPA proposes to retain authority,

under 40 CFR 52.21, for implementing

and enforcing all Virginia PSD permits,

or portions thereof, involving

requirements related to PM–10. EPA

also proposes to keep its current

delegation of authority to Virginia to

issue PSD permits in effect insofar, and

only insofar, as PSD requirements

pertaining to PM–10 are concerned. On

October 16, 1995, Virginia published a

‘‘Notice of Intended Regulatory Revision

UU Concerning Prevention of

Significant Deterioration’’ and notified

EPA of its intent. The purpose of the

proposed action is to amend Virginia’s

PSD regulation to make it conform with

federal PSD PM–10 increment and

modeling guideline provisions. EPA

solicits comments on this issue.

Summary and Analysis of Virginia’s

Submittal

In the first part of the

Commonwealth’s submittal, the

Commonwealth requested that the

‘‘Virginia Regulations for the Control

and Abatement of Air Pollution for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration,

§ 120–08–02 and Appendix L’’, and ‘‘Air

Quality Program Policies and

Procedures for Implementation of

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) of Air Quality Program (AQP–

11)’’ be added to the Virginia State

Implementation Plan.

Virginia’s submittal included four

commitments. The first commitment, to

adopt certain regulatory changes and

submit them for EPA approval, is

addressed in this notice. The other three

commitments were: the state will

‘‘transmit to the Regional Administrator

or his designee a copy of each permit

application relating to a major stationary

source or major modification, and

provide notice to the Regional

Administrator of every action related to

the consideration of such permit,’’

‘‘make a positive determination of

completeness of an application and will

notify the applicant whether or not the

application is complete,’’ and ‘‘perform

a periodic assessment’’ of the PSD SIP.

The second part of Virginia’s

submittal, consisting of amendments to

Virginia Regulation § 120–08–02,

Permits for Major Stationary Sources

and Major Modifications in Prevention

of Significant Deterioration Areas, and

Appendix L, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Areas, was submitted on

August 16, 1993. These corrections to

the PSD regulations included certain

elements necessary for federal approval

of the state PSD program. The August

16, 1993 part of the submittal also

included a revision to general

definitions for Class I, II, and III areas,

at § 120–01–02, Terms Defined.

The provisions of Virginia Regulation

§ 120–08–02 apply to the construction

of any major source or major

modification in areas that are designated

attainment or unclassifiable for the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). Specific applicable

geographic locations in Virginia are

designated in Appendix L of the

regulations. Through the definitions of

major source and major modification

equivalent to federal definitions,

Virginia’s regulations capture the

correct universe of sources for the PSD

program. Each new source or

modification is required to apply Best

Available Control Technology (BACT)

and demonstrate that the proposed

source or modification would not cause

or contribute to air pollution in

violation of a NAAQS in any Air

Quality Control Region or an applicable

maximum allowable increase over the

baseline concentration (increment) in

any area.

Regulation 120–01–02, Terms

Defined, was included in the August 16,

1993 supplement to the submittal. The

definitions of Class I, II, and III

geographic locations in Virginia that are

applicable to PSD are designated in

Appendix L of the regulations and

defined by locality for criteria and other

pollutants. Appendix L classifies PSD

areas, which include two federal Class

I areas, James River Face Wilderness

Area and Shenandoah National Park.

Virginia has no Class III areas.

The procedures used to determine

increment allocation, consumption and

protection, established in Virginia’s

AQP–11, are consistent with federal

regulations. Under Virginia’s program,

increment is allocated to permit

applicants on a sequential basis at the

time an application is determined to be

complete. Increment consumption shall

be calculated using the most recent

representative meteorological data. Any

PSD applicant shall be required to

demonstrate through air quality

modeling that emissions increases

would not cause or contribute to any

violation of allowable increments

within a Class I area if: (1.) the applicant

proposes to construct or modify within

100 kilometers of a Class I area, (2.) EPA

believes a demonstration is necessary,

even though the applicant will be

constructing beyond 100 kilometers, or

(3.) Virginia believes the change in

question may appreciably affect

increment consumption in the Class I

area. Virginia’s regulations also include

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(p)

for sources impacting federal class I

areas. In § 120–08–02 and AQP–11,

Virginia cites and will use EPA’s

Guideline on Air Quality Models and

EPA guidance regarding ‘‘Class I Area

Significant Impact Levels and Modeling

Class I Area Impacts’’ for increment

analysis and maintenance of the

NAAQS. An inventory of emissions that

consume Class I increment will be

maintained by the Commonwealth.

AQP–11 also outlines steps to prevent
1882 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

increment violations and to respond to

a Federal Land Manager who has

determined that a proposed emissions

increase would have an adverse impact

on the air quality related values.

The PSD provisions of the CAA

emphasize the importance of public

participation in permitting decisions.

See section 160(5) of the CAA. In

addition, section 165(a)(2) of the CAA

provides that no PSD permit shall be

issued unless a ‘‘public hearing has

been held with opportunity for

interested persons including

representatives of the Administrator to

appear and submit written or oral

presentations on the air quality impacts

to the source, alternatives thereto,

control technology requirements, and

other appropriate considerations.’’ See

also section 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(v).

Further, 40 CFR 51.166(a)(1) provides

that ‘‘[i]n accordance with the policy of

section 101(b)(1) of the CAA and the

purposes of section 160 of the CAA,

each applicable State implementation

plan shall contain emission limitations

and such other measures as may be

necessary to prevent significant

deterioration of air quality.’’ See also

section 161 of the CAA.

EPA interprets existing law and

regulations to require an opportunity for

state judicial review of PSD permit

actions under approved PSD SIPs by

permit applicants and affected members

of the public in order to ensure an

adequate and meaningful opportunity

for public review and comment on all

issues within the scope of the

permitting decision, including

environmental justice concerns and

alternatives to the proposed source. The

EPA believes that an opportunity for

public review and comment, as

provided in the statute and regulations,

is seriously compromised where an

affected member of the public is unable

to obtain judicial review of an alleged

failure of the state to abide by its PSD

SIP permitting rules. Accordingly, all

such persons, as well as the applicant,

must be able to challenge PSD

permitting actions in a judicial forum.

In Section 307(b) of the CAA,

Congress expressly provided an

opportunity for judicial review of PSD

permitting decisions when EPA is the

permitting authority. In a federal PSD

program (PSD FIP) such as the one

currently in effect in Virginia, any

member of the public who has

participated in the public comment

process and meets the threshold

standing requirements of Article III of

the U.S. Constitution may petition for

administrative review of the permit

within 30 days of issuance and

ultimately seek judicial review of the

administrative disposition of the permit.

There is no indication that Congress

intended that citizens’ rights would be

diminished upon the EPA approval of a

state’s PSD program.

Similarly, Congress has provided

citizens the ability to challenge the

failure of a major source to obtain the

PSD permit required under Part C of the

CAA or the violation of such permit in

Federal district court under the citizen

suit provisions of section 304(a)(3),

regardless of whether the permitting

authority is the EPA or a State. The

operative language of section 304(a)(3)

could be read as equivalent to the

federal New Source Review (NSR)

enforcement provisions of sections

113(a)(5) and 167, as enabling

challenges to both construction without

any permit and construction without a

permit that satisfies applicable NSR

requirements. The EPA believes that the

better view is that expressed in the

legislative history of the 1977

Amendments, which directed citizen

challenges to State court: ‘‘[i]n order to

challenge the legality of a permit which

a State has actually issued, or proposes

to issue, under [the PSD provisions of

the CAA] however, a citizen must seek

administrative remedies under the State

permit consideration process, or judicial

review of the permit in State court.’’

Staff of the Subcommittee on

Environmental Pollution of the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public

Works, 95th Congress, 1st Session, A

Section-by-section Analysis of S. 252

and S. 253, Clean Air Act Amendments

36 (1977), reprinted in 5 Legislative

History of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1977 (1977 Legislative

History) 3892 (1977). The EPA believes

that Congress intended such

opportunity for state judicial review of

PSD permit actions to be available to

permit applicants and at least those

members of the public who can satisfy

threshold standing requirements under

Article III of the Constitution.

Currently, under the PSD FIP in effect

in Virginia, a Virginia citizen can

petition EPA to conduct an

administrative review of a PSD permit

issued by Virginia (under a delegation

agreement with EPA) and seek judicial

review of the final permitting action in

federal court. In sharp contrast, section

10–1.1318(B) of the Code of Virginia

extends the right to seek judicial review

only to persons who have suffered an

‘‘actual, threatened, or imminent injury

* * *’’ where ‘‘such injury is an

invasion of an immediate, legally

protected, pecuniary and substantial

interest which is concrete and

particularized * * *’’ The Virginia

statute, as well as Virginia case law,

does not enable any member of the

public who participated in the public

comment process on a PSD permit and

who meets the threshold standing

requirements of Article III of the

Constitution to obtain judicial review of

the permit in the Commonwealth’s court

system.

The limited judicial review in

Virginia thus does not meet the

minimum requirements for standing for

judicial review required for PSD SIP

programs under the CAA and EPA’s

implementing regulations. Therefore,

the EPA is proposing to disapprove

Virginia’s PSD submittal. The EPA

solicits comment on this view, and, in

the alternative, proposes to approve the

submittal should EPA conclude that

such judicial standing is not required

for approval of a PSD SIP.

EPA has noted that some of Virginia’s

definitions do not conform with the

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of

1990, although they do conform with

federal regulations. EPA does not

believe that this affects the decisionmaking process for this proposed

rulemaking action. EPA is currently in

the process of making changes to federal

regulations at 40 CFR parts C and D to

comply with the CAAA. When EPA

promulgates changes to the PSD

regulations, all states will be required to

comply with the new federal

regulations, either through SIP revisions

or updated delegation agreements.

Specific timetables for those changes

will be included in the rulemaking

notice.

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that, with the exception of the

issue highlighted above, Virginia’s

regulations and procedures are

sufficient to implement and enforce a

PSD program. A more detailed

evaluation of Virginia’s regulations for

PSD can be found, in this rulemaking’s

docket file, in a memorandum entitled

‘‘Revision to the Commonwealth of

Virginia Implementation Plan for

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

of Air Quality—Technical Support

Document’’. Copies of that document

are available upon request from the EPA

regional office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this notice.

Proposed Action

If the Agency determines, after

reviewing public comment on this issue,

that Virginia’s PSD program must

provide access to judicial review on a

PSD permit to any party who

participates in the public comment

process and who meets the threshold

standing requirements of Article III of

the U.S. Constitution, EPA will

disapprove the SIP revision submitted
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 1883

by Virginia. Alternatively, if the Agency

determines, after reviewing public

comment on this proposal, that

provisions for judicial review are

unnecessary, and that Virginia’s PSD

program, with the exception of the PM–

10 and modeling guideline provisions,

meets the requirements of the CAA

applicable to state PSD Programs, EPA

will conditionally approve the SIP

revision. In order to correct the

deficiencies, Virginia must amend the

Virginia Regulations and AQP–11 to

meet the current federal PSD

requirements at 40 CFR part 51 by

addressing the PM–10 and modeling

guideline provisions. The program

amendments must be submitted within

one year of conditional approval. If

Virginia fails to revise and submit the

amendments within one year, the

conditional approval will convert to a

disapproval.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

Virginia’s SIP submittal, and, in

particular, on the issues discussed in

this notice. These comments will be

considered before taking final action.

Interested parties may submit written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

EPA is proposing to disapprove or, in

the alternative, conditionally approve

Virginia’s request to revise the

Commonwealth’s SIP to include

Virginia Regulation for the Control and

Abatement of Air Pollution, § 120–08–

02, permits for major sources and major

modifications located in prevention of

significant deterioration areas, and

Appendix L, prevention of significant

deterioration areas; and Air Quality

Program Policies and Procedures for

Implementation of Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air

Quality Program, AQP–11. EPA is also

proposing to disapprove or, in the

alternative, conditionally approve

supplementary revisions to § 120–01–

02, § 120–08–02, and Appendix L. For

conditional approval, Virginia must

amend the program as specified above

to satisfy the applicable federal PSD

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart

I. With the exception of the PM–10

requirements, the Commonwealth will

have authority to implement and

enforce the PSD program through its

SIP, and the delegation agreement will

be terminated. EPA will retain authority

under 40 CFR § 52.21, for implementing

and enforcing all Virginia PSD permits,

or portions thereof, involving

requirements related to PM–10 until a

SIP revision for PM–10 increments and

modeling guidelines is approved. EPA’s

current delegation of authority to

Virginia to issue PSD permits will

remain in effect insofar, and only

insofar, as PSD requirements pertaining

to PM–10 are concerned. If Virginia later

submits, as the October 16, 1995

‘‘Notice of Intended Regulatory Action’’

indicates, and receives EPA approval of

a revision to the Virginia PSD SIP

incorporating the PM–10 increments

and modeling provisions, the delegation

agreement will be completely

terminated.

If these revisions to the PSD

requirements of the Virginia SIP are

approved, EPA will continue to oversee

implementation of this important

program by reviewing and commenting

on proposed permits with respect to

applicable statutory and regulatory

provisions and guidance. Also, EPA will

implement and enforce the PM–10

increment standards until such time as

EPA receives and approves a revision to

the Virginia SIP incorporating those

standards into the SIP. If a final permit

is issued which still does not reflect

consideration of the relevant factors,

EPA may deem the permit inadequate

for purposes of implementing the

requirements of the Act and Virginia’s

SIP, and may consider enforcement

action under sections 113 and 167 of the

Act to address the permit deficiency.

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.

SIP disapprovals or conditional

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 disapproval or

approval in this situation 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).

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 proposal or final that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs to state, local

or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to the 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. This federal action

disapproves, or conditionally approves

pre-existing requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

The Administrator’s decision to

disapprove, or in the alternative, to

conditionally approve Virginia’s SIP

revision for the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration Program will

be based on whether it meets the

applicable requirements of the Clean Air

Act and of the EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 15, 1995.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–1051 Filed 1–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 152

[OPP–250112; FRL–4988–8]

Pesticide and Ground Water State

Management Plan Regulation;

Notification to the Secretary of

Agriculture

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification to

Secretary of Agriculture.

SUMMARY: Notice is given pursuant to

section 25(a)(2) of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), that the Administrator of

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has forwarded to the Secretary of