Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29667

(b) for Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions

for Kraft Mills. Specifically, EPA is

approving Tennessee’s submittal as

meeting the gaseous emissions

requirements for TRS emissions for

Kraft Mills.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective on August 12,

1996, unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse

or critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. 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 on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on August 12, 1996.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996.

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) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).]

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 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 a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

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 any SIP 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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small business, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

11 and subchapter I, part D of the Act

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 Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA 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) and 7410(k)(3).

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Section 165

of the CAA. These rules may bind State,

local and tribal governments to perform

certain actions and also require the

private sector to perform certain duties.

EPA has examined whether the rules

being approved by this action will

impose no new requirements, since

such sources are already subject to these

regulations under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action, and therefore there will be no

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Paper and paper

products industry, Phosphate, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Sulfuric oxides.

Dated: May 28, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 62, of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7413 and 7601.

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Subpart RR is amended by adding

an undesignated heading and a new

§ 62.10625 to read as follows:

Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From

Existing Kraft Pulp Mills

§ 62.10625 Identification of plan.

On June 25, 1993, the State submitted

revisions to the Tennessee State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These were

revisions to the process gaseous

emission standards. These revisions

incorporate changes to Rule 1200–3–7–

.07, subparagraphs (4)(a) and (4)(b) of

the Tennessee SIP which bring this into

conformance with the requirements of

40 CFR part 62, subpart I.

[FR Doc. 96–14908 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[ID14–6994a; FRL–5515–1 ]

Description of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; State of Idaho;

Correction to Boundary of the PowerBannock Counties Particulate Matter

Nonattainment Area to Exclude the

Inkom Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule, correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects EPA’s

announcement of the boundary of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area (particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter less than

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers)

in the State of Idaho. The boundary of

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area is being corrected to

exclude that portion east of the Inkom

Gap, a geographic feature separating the

Inkom area from the rest of the
29668 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

nonattainment area. New analysis of air

quality data existing at the time of the

original area designation indicates that

the Inkom area, at the time of and prior

to designation, had never violated the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for PM–10. Additional current

information also indicates that the

Inkom area has not and is not predicted

to violate the PM–10 standard into the

foreseeable future. This action will

remove the City of Inkom and the

surrounding area from the

nonattainment area. With this

correction, the Part D new source review

requirements of the Clean Air Act will

no longer apply to sources in the Inkom

area. Instead, new or modified major

sources of particulate matter would be

subject to the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) requirements.

DATES: This action will be effective on

August 12, 1996 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by July

12, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Steven K.

Body, Office of Air Quality, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

WA 98101. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, (206) 553–0782, or by

mail at the Region 10 address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. In General

Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air

Act sets out the general process by

which areas were to be designated

nonattainment for PM–10 upon

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (the ‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’).

The procedure that is relevant for the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area is stated in section

107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act, which

provides that each area that had been

identified by EPA as a PM–10 Group I

area prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (these were areas that, at

the time the particulate matter indicator

was changed from TSP to PM–10, were

estimated to have a high probability of

exceeding the PM–10 NAAQS) be

designated nonattainment for PM–10 by

operation of law upon enactment of the

1990 Amendments. While EPA believes

that, in general, the language of this

section would appear to preclude any

exercise of EPA discretion to modify

these initial nonattainment area

designations, EPA also believes that

section 107(d)(4)(B)(i)’s explicit reliance

on the Agency’s prior Group I

determinations provides the basis for an

exception to the general rule. By

requiring that all Group I areas be

among the initial areas designated

nonattainment upon enactment of the

1990 CAAA, Congress relied on EPA’s

expertise and judgment in determining,

based on an analysis of relevant air

quality information, those areas for

which a PM–10 nonattainment status

was merited. EPA does not believe that

Congress intended initial PM–10 areas

to be designated nonattainment based

on a clearly erroneous Group I

determination. Thus, one exception to

the non-initial designation modification

principle is where, prior to enactment of

the 1990 Amendments, EPA mistakenly

construed then-existing air quality data

and, as a consequence, incorrectly

identified an area as being among the

Group I areas that were subsequently

reference in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the

Act. See 56 FR 37654, 37656 (August 8,

1991).

As discussed below, EPA believes that

such a clear identification error

occurred in the case of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area. That is, EPA

believes that it acted in error in

including the Inkom area as part of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area. Accordingly, under

the authority of section 110(k)(6) of the

Act, and based on the State’s request,

EPA is revising the boundary of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area to exclude the

Inkom area. Although this boundary

correction action is not subject to the

legal requirements for public notice and

comment, EPA is providing the public

with an opportunity to comment on this

action in order to foster public

participation and avoid further error.

B. Designation of the Area as

Nonattainment

Prior to promulgation of the PM–10

NAAQS on July, 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672),

total suspended particulate (TSP) was

the indicator for particulate matter. In

the Pocatello vicinity, the TSP

nonattainment area consisted of the 12

square mile industrial area

approximately 10 miles west of

downtown Pocatello. See 49 FR 11177

(March 26, 1984). Two major stationary

sources of particulate matter, FMC

Corporation’s elemental phosphorus

facility and J.R. Simplot Company’s

phosphate fertilizer facility, are located

in the industrial complex. This TSP

nonattainment area did not include the

City of Pocatello.

After promulgation of the PM–10

standard, EPA published a list of ‘‘PM–

10 Group I areas,’’ areas with a strong

likelihood of violating the PM–10

NAAQS and requiring substantial

revisions to their existing state

implementation plans. See 52 FR 29383

(August 7, 1987). The August 7, 1987,

document listed ‘‘Pocatello’’ as a Group

I ‘‘area of concern’’ and identified that

area as including both Power and

Bannock Counties. 52 FR 29385. In

October 1990, EPA issued a document

clarifying the description of certain

Group I areas of concern. 55 FR 45799

(October 31, 1990). This document

described the area of concern as the

‘‘City of Pocatello’’ in Power and

Bannock Counties and further explained

that: ‘‘When cities or towns are shown,

the area of concern is defined by the

municipal boundary limits as of the date

of this notice.’’ 55 FR 45801 n. 2. The

City of Pocatello, however, lies only in

Bannock County. In addition, the City of

Pocatello does not include either the

FMC facility or the J.R. Simplot facility

in the industrial complex. Considering

the original TSP nonattainment area

boundary, it would seem apparent that

any potential PM–10 nonattainment site

for this area would have included the

industrial complex, including the two

major stationary sources located there.

However, the erroneous boundary

description for this area on the PM–10

Group I areas list remained, as

explained above, and became the

boundary description for the PM–10

area that was designated nonattainment

by operation of law upon enactment of

the 1990 Amendments. Given the above

inconsistencies, it seems evident that

the current boundaries of the Pocatello

PM–10 nonattainment area were and are

incorrect.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

became effective November 15, 1990. As

discussed above, section 107(d)(4)(By)(i)

required that all Group I areas be

designated nonattainment for PM–10 by

operation of law upon enactment of the

1990 Amendments. In March 1991, EPA

published a Federal Register document

announcing all the areas, including all

the Group I areas, designated under the

amended Act as PM–10 nonattainment

areas. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).

The document identified the ‘‘City of

Pocatello’’ in Power and Bannock

Counties as such an area, and provided

the public an opportunity to comment.

As the document indicated, EPA’s

solicitation of public comment on the

nonattainment area boundaries did not

stem from any legal obligation, because

neither the initial designations nor the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29669

initial classifications for PM–10 were

subject to the requirements for noticeand-comment rulemaking under either

the Administrative Procedures Act (5

U.S.C. 553–657) or section 307(d) of the

Clean Air Act. See generally 56 FR

11103; see also 56 FR 36755 & n. 2.

Rather, as a matter of policy, EPA

requested public comment on the

document in order to facilitate public

participation and avoid errors.

In response to EPA’s March 1991

Federal Register document, the Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality

(IDEQ) submitted comments to EPA

indicating what portion of the Pocatello

area in Power and Bannock Counties

IDEQ believed should be designated

nonattainment for PM–10. The area

described by IDEQ was approximately

260 square miles of lands in Power and

Bannock counties that included lands

under State jurisdiction and both trust

and fee lands within the Fort Hall

Indian Reservation. The area also

included the two major stationary

sources in the industrial complex, the

Cities of Chubbuck and Pocatello and

certain areas east of Inkom Gap. The

area east of Inkom Gap includes the City

of Inkom, a small community

approximately 15 miles southeast of

downtown Pocatello, and a cement

plant operated by Ash Grove Cement

Company, which is a major stationary

source of PM–10 (see discussion later in

this document regarding the emissions

impact of this facility).

In August 1991, EPA used its

authority under section 110(k)(6) of the

Act to make corrections in

nonattainment area designations and

descriptions for several Group I areas

based on information submitted by

commenters on the March 1991

document. 56 FR 37656 (August 8,

1991). EPA included in that document

corrections and clarifications to the

boundary description of the Pocatello

nonattainment area consistent with

IDEQ’s request. In correcting the PowerBannock Counties listing, EPA noted

that the prior boundary description for

this nonattainment area as ‘‘the City of

Pocatello’’ was clearly erroneous since

Pocatello lies only in Bannock County,

and that EPA and the State had

originally intended that certain areas

surrounding the City of Pocatello in

both Power and Bannock Counties be

included in the nonattainment area. 56

FR 37658, 37664. In formally codifying

the final designations, classifications,

and boundaries of areas in the country

with respect to PM–10 (and other

NAAQS) in November 1991, EPA

further refined the description of the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area by clearly specifying

those lands in the nonattainment area

which are within the exterior boundary

of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and

those lands in the nonattainment area

that are State lands. 56 FR 56694, 56749

(November 6, 1991). However, neither

the August nor the November 1991

documents addressed the question of

whether the portion of the

nonattainment area east of the Inkom

Gap was properly included in the

boundary description.

II. This Action

A. Correction of the Boundary of the

Nonattainment Area

On May 23, 1995, IDEQ submitted to

EPA additional analysis of data that

were available at the time of enactment

of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

in support of a request to once again

correct the Power-Bannock Counties

PM–10 nonattainment area boundary.

The State’s submittal asked EPA to

exclude that portion east of the Inkom

Gap and to simultaneously redesignate

the Inkom area to attainment. Based on

the data information, EPA believes that

the State has demonstrated that

inclusion of the Inkom area in the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area prior to the 1990

Amendments to the Clean Air Act was

in error.

IDEQ’s additional analysis is based

upon monitored TSP data from two

locations in Inkom during the 1970s and

1980s. IDEQ operated a sampler at the

U.S. Post Office during 1972 and again

from 1974 through 1986. In 1986, IDEQ

moved the sampler to a well pump

station owned by the City of Inkom

located on Highway 30, approximately

one mile north of the Post Office.

Monitoring continued at this location

until it was discontinued on December

1, 1988. The State’s additional analysis

of the TSP data collected by IDEQ

during the 1970s and 1980s converting

TSP data to PM–10 data using a general

ratio of PM–10 to TSP demonstrates that

the Inkom area has not experienced a

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS since

1981, well before promulgation of the

PM–10 NAAQS on July 1, 1987. The

data submitted by IDEQ also shows a

substantial improvement in air quality

in the Inkom area after 1982. In

addition, IDEQ submitted emission

reduction information (which included

both historical actual emission estimates

and allowable emission rates for the Ash

Grove Cement facility) for the Inkom

area that demonstrates that the PM–10

NAAQS has been protected since 1988,

when monitoring in the area ceased,

because of reduced emissions. For a

further discussion of the air quality data

and the emission reductions that have

been achieved in the area, please refer

to the IDEQ submittal in the docket.

Section 110(k)(6) of the Act authorizes

EPA, upon a determination that EPA’s

action in approving, disapproving or

promulgating any State Implementation

Plan or plan revision (or any part

thereof) was in error, to revise the action

as appropriate in the same manner as

the approval, disapproval, or

promulgation. In making such a

correction, EPA must provide such

determination and the basis for it to the

State and the public. By this document,

EPA is notifying the State of Idaho, the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the

public that EPA is correcting the

boundary of the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area to

exclude the area east of Inkom Gap, thus

excluding the City of Inkom and Ash

Grove Cement’s facility. The basis for

this boundary correction is that the

State of Idaho, which requested in 1991

that the Inkom area be included in the

Power-Bannock County PM–10

nonattainment area, has now submitted

valid data information to EPA showing

that its 1991 request was in error and

asking EPA to correct the boundary

description. Had the State of Idaho

presented this information either before

the clarification of the Group I listing of

October 31, 1990, or before the August

8, 1991, clarification of the PM–10

nonattainment area boundary, EPA

would have excluded the Inkom area

from the Power-Bannock Counties PM–

10 nonattainment area.

Accordingly, as of the effective date of

this action, the North-South boundary

along the eastern edge of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area will be defined as

the line between the West 1⁄2 and East 1⁄2 of:

Sections 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T6S, R35E,

Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T7S,

R35E, and

Section 3 of T8S, R35E

Although neither the Administrative

Procedures Act nor the Clean Air Act

legally obligate EPA to provide the

public an opportunity to comment on

this correction, EPA is inviting the

State, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,

and the public to comment on this

action to foster public participation and

avoid error. EPA will consider any

written comments on this action that are

received by July 12, 1996. This

correction will become effective on

August 12, 1996. This will provide

sufficient time for EPA to make any

adjustments to this correction that are

appropriate in light of the comments.
29670 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

In making this boundary correction,

EPA notes that IDEQ has also provided

information showing that significant

emission reductions have been achieved

at the Ash Grove Cement facility since

1990 and that Ash Grove Cement is now

operating under a 1995 IDEQ-issued and

federally enforceable operating permit

that establishes emission limits that will

protect the NAAQS into the future.

IDEQ has also provided information

showing that emissions from sources in

the Inkom area are not expected to

contribute to violations of the PM–10

NAAQS in other portions of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area because the Inkom

Gap, a constriction in the Portneuf River

Valley formed by a mountain ridge

rising 1500 feet above the valley floor on

either side of the river, effectively

provides a natural barrier between the

airsheds of Inkom and Pocatello and

prevents transport of emissions between

them. Finally, IDEQ has committed to

monitor air quality at two locations in

the Inkom area and to monitor

meteorology at one location in the

Inkom area. Air quality monitoring has

already begun in a residential area near

the elementary school in Inkom and a

second air quality monitor, located at

the site of the expected maximum

impact of Ash Grove Cement’s facility,

began operation on October 12, 1995.

In correcting the boundary of the

Power-Bannock PM–10 nonattainment

area to exclude the Inkom area, EPA has

relied on the data available prior to

August 1991, when EPA announced the

boundary description, along with

subsequent analysis of those data. The

information submitted by IDEQ

regarding emission reductions and

emission limitations since that time and

IDEQ’s commitments to monitor air

quality in the Inkom area in the future

were not regarded by EPA as a basis for

the correction. However, this

information and the State’s

commitments do provide additional

assurance that the NAAQS will be

protected in the Inkom area into the

future. EPA would be reluctant to revise

through correction the description of a

nonattainment area based on

information available before EPA’s

initial erroneous boundary description

if data collected since the initial

erroneous boundary description

indicated that the area was not in

attainment of, or would be expected to

soon violate, the NAAQS.

B. State’s Request to Redesignate the

Inkom Area to Attainment

The State has also requested that the

Inkom area be redesignated to

attainment. EPA declines to grant this

portion of the State’s request at this

time, because to do so would undermine

the planning requirements of section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act for redesignation

of a nonattainment area (or portion

thereof) to attainment. EPA may

redesignate an area to attainment if:

(i) The Administrator determines that

the area has attained the NAAQS;

(ii) The Administrator has fully

approved the applicable

implementation plan for the area under

section 110(k) of the Act;

(iii) The Administrator determines

that the improvement in air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable

federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions;

(iv) The Administrator has fully

approved a maintenance plan for the

area as meeting the requirements of

section 175A of the Act; and,

(v) The State containing such area has

met all the requirements applicable to

the area under section 110 and part D

of the Act.

The State of Idaho has not provided

sufficient information to allow EPA to

make these findings for the Inkom area.

Therefore, EPA is not granting the

State’s request to redesignate the Inkom

area to attainment. Thus, this correction

to the nonattainment area boundary will

result in the Inkom area being

designated ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for PM–10.

This designation is the same designation

as most rural areas within the State of

Idaho, and is the designation the Inkom

area would have had in August 1991

had it not been erroneously included in

the Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area.

III. Implications of this Action

Upon the effective date of this rule,

the Inkom area, which is currently

designated nonattainment for PM–10,

will revert to a designation of

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for PM–10. A revised

description of the boundary for the

Power-Bannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area is set forth in the

table below, which shows the

corrections that will be made to the

Table in Part 81.

As a result of today’s action, new or

modified major stationary sources of

particulate matter in the Inkom area will

be subject to Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) requirements of Part

C of the Act rather than the New Source

Review requirements of Part D of the

Act. In addition, the State no longer

needs to include the Inkom area in the

planning requirements for the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area. However, removing

the Inkom area from the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area

does not protect any source in the area

from requirements for additional control

technology if the source’s emissions are

determined in the future to contribute to

violations of a NAAQS in the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area or elsewhere and if

such control technology is necessary to

attain the NAAQS.

As discussed above, based on the

information submitted by the State, EPA

believes that the NAAQS in the Inkom

area has been protected through the

present and will also be protected into

the foreseeable future. Should one of the

State’s monitors record a violation of the

PM–10 or other particulate matter

NAAQS in the future, however, EPA

will proceed immediately to redesignate

the Inkom area to nonattainment.

IV. Administrative Review

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 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 EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 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 proposed or final rule

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29671

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

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.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective August 12, 1996

unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

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. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective August 12, 1996.

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 August 12, 1996.

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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection,

Designation of areas for air quality

planning purposes.

Dated: May 29, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

U.S. EPA Administrator.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

Chapter I, Title 40 of the code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. Section 81.313 is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Bannock and

Power Counties’’ in the ‘‘Idaho PM–10

Nonattainment Areas’’ table to read as

follows:

§ 81.313 Idaho

* * * * *

IDAHO—PM–10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

* * * * * * *

Power-Bannock Counties, part of: (Pocatello)

State Lands 11/15/90 Nonattainment 11/15/90 Moderate

T.5S, R.34E Sections 25–36;

T.5S, R.35E Section 31;

T.6S, R.34E Sections 1–36;

T.6S, R.35E Sections 5–9, 16–21, 28–33

Plus the West 1⁄2 of Sections 10, 15, 22, 27, 34

T.7S, R.34E Sections 1–4, 10–14, and 24

T.7S, R.35E Sections 4–9, 16–21, 28–33

Plus the West 1⁄2 of Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34

T.8S, R.35E, Section 4

Plus the West 1/2 of Section 3

Fort Hall Indian Reservation:

T.5S, R.34E Sections 15–23;

T.5S, R.33E Sections 13–36

T.6S, R.33E Sections 1–36

T.7S, R.33E Sections 4, 5, 6

T.7S, R 34E Section 8

* * * * * * *
29672 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14455 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 2F4086/R2238; FRL–5368–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pesticide Tolerance for 1-[[2-(2,4-

Dichlorophenyl)-4-Propyl-1,3-Dioxolan2-yl]Methyl]-1H-1,2,4-Triazole

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes a

tolerance for combined residues of the

fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-

propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites

determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid

and expressed as parent compound in or

on the raw agricultural commodities oat

grain at 0.1 parts per million (ppm), oat

straw at 1.0 ppm, oat forage at 10.0 ppm,

and oat hay at 30.0 ppm. The regulation

to establish a maximum permissible

level for residues of the fungicide was

requested in a petition submitted by

Ciba-Geigy Corp.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective June 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 2F4086/

R2238], 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.

An electronic copy of objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk may be submitted to OPP by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests must be submitted as

an ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket number [PP 2F4086/R2238] . No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Connie B. Welch, Product

Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703)

305–6226; e-mail:

welch.connie@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a notice (FRL–4971–5),

published in the Federal Register of

November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57420),

which announced that Ciba-Geigy Corp.,

P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419

had submitted pesticide petition (PP)

2F4086 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 tolerances for combined

residues of the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H -1,2,4-triazole in or on

the raw agricultural commodities oat

grain at 0.1 ppm, oat straw at 1.0 ppm,

oat forage at 10.0 ppm, and oat hay at

30.0 ppm.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The scientific data submitted in the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. The data

considered in support of the tolerance

include:

1. Plant and animal metabolism

studies.

2. Residue data for crop and livestock

commodities.

3. Two enforcement methods and

multiresidue method testing data.

4. A 90–day rat feeding study with a

no-observable-effect level (NOEL) of 12

mg/kg/day.

5. A 90–day dog feeding study with a

NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.

6. A rabbit developmental toxicity

study with a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/

kg/day and a developmental toxicity

NOEL of Greater than 400 mg/kg/day

(highest dose tested) (HDT)).

7. A rat teratology study with a

maternal NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day and a

developmental toxicity NOEL of 30 mg/

kg/day.

8. A 2–generation rat reproduction

study with a reproductive NOEL of 125

mg/kg/day (HDT) and a developmental

toxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day.

9. A 1–year dog feeding study with a

NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.

10. A 2–year rat chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study with a NOEL of 5

mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic

potential under the conditions of the

study up to and including

approximately 125 mg/kg/day, the

highest dose tested.

11. A 2–year mouse chronic feeding/

carcinogenicity study with a NOEL of 15

mg/kg/day and with a statistically

significant increase in combined

adenomas and carcinomas of the liver in

male mice at approximately 375 mg/kg/

day, the highest dose tested.

12. Ames test with and without

activation, negative.

13. A mouse dominant-lethal assay,

negative.

14. Chinese hamster nucleus anomaly,

negative.

15. Cell transformation assay,

negative.

Ciba-Geigy submitted information

which resolved the previously

outstanding concerns about the nature

of the residue in ruminants, an

explanation of recovery calculations,

and an explanation of the crop field trial

protocol. Data gaps exist concerning

dosing in the mouse carcinogenicity

study. These data requirements were

required under reregistration, pursuant

to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.

136 et seq.

As part of EPA’s evaluation of

potential human health risks, 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H- 1,2,4-triazole has been

the subject of five Peer Reviews and one

Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP)

meeting.

The fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-

dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole was

originally evaluated by the Peer Review

Committee on January 15, 1987, and

classified as a Group C (possible human)

carcinogen with a recommendation

made for the quantification of estimated

potential human risk using a linearized

low-dose extrapolation. The method

resulted in the establishment of a Q* of

7.9 × 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1.

The Peer Review Committee’s

decision was presented to the FIFRA

Scientific Advisory Panel on March 2,

1988. The Panel did not concur with the

committee’s overall assessment of the