Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66321

Dated: December 10, 2001.

Lawrence E. Starfield,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

Parts 52 and 81, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations are amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T—Louisiana

2. Section 52.975 is amended by

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 52.975 Redesignations and maintenance

plans; ozone.

* * * * *

(f) Approval—The Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ) submitted minimal maintenance

plans for Lafourche Parish on November

18, 1994. The LDEQ submitted a

redesignation request on August 9,

2000. The maintenance plans meet the

redesignation requirements in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act as amended in

1990. The redesignation meets the

Federal requirements of section

182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as a

revision to the Louisiana ozone State

Implementation Plan for Lafourche

Parish.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 81.319, the table entitled

‘‘Louisiana—Ozone (1-Hour Standard)’’

is amended by revising the entry for

Lafourche Parish to read as follows:

§ 81.319 Louisiana.

* * * * *

LOUISIANA—OZONE (1-HOUR STANDARD)

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

*******

Lafourche Parish ..................................................................... 2/25/02 Attainment.

*******

1This date is October 18, 2000, unless otherwise noted.

[FR Doc. 01–31483 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[DC001–1000; FRL–7121–7]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; District of

Columbia; Department of Health

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule and delegation.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve the District of

Columbia (the District) Department of

Health’s (DoH’s) request for delegation

of authority to implement and enforce

its hazardous air pollutant general

provisions and hazardous air pollutant

emission standards for

perchloroethylene dry cleaning

facilities, hard and decorative

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks, halogenated solvent

cleaning, and publicly owned treatment

works, as well as the test methods,

which have been adopted by reference

from the Federal requirements set forth

in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR). This approval will automatically

delegate future amendments to these

regulations once the District

incorporates those amendments into its

regulations. In addition, EPA is taking

direct final action to approve the

District’s mechanism for receiving

delegation of future hazardous air

pollutant regulations. This mechanism

entails DoH’s incorporation by reference

of the Federal standard (unchanged),

into its hazardous air pollutant

regulation, DoH’s notification to EPA of

such incorporation, and DoH’s

submission of a delegation request letter

to EPA following EPA notification of a

new Federal requirement. EPA is not

waiving its notification and reporting

requirements, therefore, sources will

need to send notifications and reports to

both DoH and EPA. This action pertains

to affected sources, as defined by the

Clean Air Act’s (CAA or the Act)

hazardous air pollutant program. EPA is

taking this action in accordance with

the Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be

effective February 25, 2002 unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

January 25, 2002. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal

Register and inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be sent concurrently to:

Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Permits and

Technical Assessment Branch, Mail

Code 3AP11, Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, and

Donald E. Wambsgans II, Program

Manager of the Air Quality Division,

District of Columbia Department of

Health, 825 North Capital Street, NE.,

Suite 400, Washington, DC 20002.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 and

the District of Columbia Department of

Health, 825 North Capital Street, NE.,

Suite 400, Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dianne J. McNally, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch

Street (3AP11), Philadelphia, PA 19103–

2029, mcnally.dianne@epa.gov

(telephone 215–814–3297). Please note

that any formal comments must be

submitted, in writing, as provided in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 112(l) of the Act and 40 CFR

part 63 subpart E authorize EPA to

approve of State rules and programs to

be implemented and enforced in place

of certain CAA requirements, including

the National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth in 40

CFR part 63. EPA promulgated the

program approval regulations on

November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262) and

subsequently amended these regulations

66322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55810).

An approvable State program must

contain, among other criteria, the

following elements:

(a) A demonstration of the state’s

authority and resources to implement

and enforce regulations that are at least

as stringent as the NESHAP

requirements;

(b) A schedule demonstrating

expeditious implementation of the

regulation; and

(c) A plan that assures expeditious

compliance by all sources subject to the

regulation.

On May 21, 2001, EPA received a

request from the District’s DoH seeking

delegation of authority to implement

and enforce the hazardous air pollutant

regulations for certain affected sources

defined in 40 CFR part 63. At the

present time, this request includes the

hazardous pollutant general provisions

and regulations for perchloroethylene

dry cleaning facilities, hard and

decorative chromium electroplating and

chromium anodizing tanks, halogenated

solvent cleaning, publicly owned

treatment works, as well as the

hazardous pollutant regulation test

methods which have been adopted by

reference from the Federal requirements

set forth in 40 CFR part 63, subparts A,

M, N, T, VVV and Appendix A. The

District also requested that EPA

automatically delegate future

amendments to these regulations and

approve DoH’s mechanism for receiving

delegation of future hazardous air

pollutant regulations which it adopts

unchanged from the Federal

requirements. This mechanism entails

the DoH’s incorporation by reference of

the Federal standard, unchanged, into

its hazardous air pollutant regulation at

Section 700 of Title 20 of the District of

Columbia Municipal Regulation, DoH’s

notification to EPA of such

incorporation, and DoH’s submission of

a delegation request letter to EPA

following notification of a new Federal

requirement.

II. EPA’s Analysis of the District’s

Submittal

Based on the District’s program

approval request and its pertinent laws

and regulations, EPA has determined

that such an approval is appropriate in

that the District has satisfied the criteria

of 40 CFR 63.91. In accordance with 40

CFR 63.91(d)(3)(i), the District’s DoH

submitted a written finding by the

District of Columbia Corporation

Counsel which demonstrates that the

District of Columbia has the necessary

legal authority to implement and

enforce its regulations, including the

enforcement authorities which meet 40

CFR 70.11, the authority to request

information from regulated sources, and

the authority to inspect sources and

records to determine compliance status.

In accordance with 40 CFR

63.91(d)(3)(ii), the District submitted

copies of its statutes, regulations and

requirements that grant authority to

DoH to implement and enforce the

regulations. In accordance with 40 CFR

63.91(d)(3)(iii)–(v), the District

submitted documentation of adequate

resources and a schedule and plan to

assure expeditious implementation and

compliance by all sources. Therefore,

the District’s program has adequate and

effective authorities, resources, and

procedures in place for implementation

and enforcement of sources subject to

the requirements of 40 CFR part 63,

subparts A, M, N, T, VVV and Appendix

A, as well as any future emission

standards, should the District’s DoH

seek delegation for these standards. The

DoH adopts the emission standards

promulgated in 40 CFR part 63 into

section 700 of Title 20 of the District of

Columbia Municipal Regulations

(DCMR). The District’s DoH has the

primary authority and responsibility to

carry out all elements of these programs

for all sources covered in the District of

Columbia, including on-site inspections,

record keeping reviews, and

enforcement.

III. Terms of Program Approval and

Delegation of Authority

In order for the District’s DoH to

receive automatic delegation of future

amendments to the hazardous air

pollutant general provisions and the

perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities,

hard and decorative chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

tanks, halogenated solvent cleaning,

publicly owned treatment works

regulations and test method regulations,

each such amendment must be legally

adopted by the District of Columbia. As

stated earlier, these amendments are

adopted into section 700 of Title 20 of

the DCMR. The delegation of

amendments to these rules will be

finalized on the effective date of the

legal adoption. The DoH will notify EPA

of its adoption of the Federal regulation

amendments.

EPA has also determined that DoH’s

mechanism for receiving delegation of

future hazardous air pollutant

regulations, which it adopts unchanged

from the Federal requirements, can be

approved. This mechanism requires

DoH to legally adopt the Federal

regulation into section 700 of Title 20 of

the DCMR and to notify EPA of such

adoption. The DoH is also required to

submit a delegation request letter to

EPA following EPA notification of a

new Federal requirement. EPA will

grant the delegation request, if

appropriate, by sending a letter to DoH

outlining the authority to implement

and enforce the standard. The

delegation will be finalized within 10

days of receipt of the delegation letter

unless DoH files a negative response.

The official notice of delegation of

additional emission standards will be

published in the Federal Register.

The notification and reporting

provisions in 40 CFR part 63 requiring

the owners or operators of affected

sources to make submissions to the

Administrator shall be met by sending

such submissions to the District’s DoH

and EPA Region III.

If at any time there is a conflict

between a District regulation and a

Federal regulation, the Federal

regulation must be applied if it is more

stringent than that of the District. EPA

is responsible for determining

stringency between conflicting

regulations. If the District’s DoH does

not have the authority to enforce the

more stringent Federal regulation, it

shall notify EPA Region III, in writing,

as soon as possible so that this portion

of the delegation may be revoked.

If EPA determines that DoH’s

procedures for enforcing or

implementing the 40 CFR part 63

requirements are inadequate, or are not

being effectively carried out, this

delegation may be revoked in whole or

in part in accordance with the

procedures set out in 40 CFR 63.96(b).

Certain provisions of 40 CFR part 63

allow only the Administrator of EPA to

take further standard setting actions. In

addition to the specific authorities

retained by the Administrator in 40 CFR

63.90(d) and the ‘‘Delegation of

Authorities’’ section for specific

standards, EPA Region III is retaining

the following authorities, in accordance

with 40 CFR 63.91(g)(2)(ii):

(1) Approval of alternative nonopacity emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR

63.6(g) and applicable sections of

relevant standards;

(2) Approval of alternative opacity

standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.9(h)(9) and

applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods, as defined in 40 CFR

63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring, as defined in 40 CFR

63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and

applicable sections of relevant

standards; and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66323

1Applicability determinations are considered to

be nationally significant when they:

(i) Are unusually complex or controversial;

(ii) Have bearing on more than one state or are

multi-Regional;

(iii) Appear to create a conflict with previous

policy or determinations;

(iv) Are a legal issue which has not been

previously considered; or

(v) Raise new policy questions and shall be

forwarded to EPA Regional III prior to finalization.

Detailed information on the applicability

determination process may be found in EPA

document 305–B–99–004 How to Review and Issue

Clean Air Act Applicability Determinations and

Alternative Monitoring, dated February 1999. The

DoH may also refer to the Compendium of

Applicability Determinations issued by the EPA

and may contact EPA Region III for guidance.

2The DoH will notify EPA of these approvals on

a quarterly basis by submitting a copy of the test

plan approval letter. Any plans which propose

major alternative test methods or major alternative

monitoring methods shall be referred to EPA for

approval.

3The DoH will notify EPA of these approvals on

a quarterly basis by submitting a copy of the

performance evaluation plan approval letter. Any

plans which propose major alternative test methods

or major alternative monitoring methods shall be

referred to EPA for approval.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting, as defined

in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f)

and applicable sections of relevant

standards.

The following provisions are included

in this delegation, in accordance with

40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(i), but may only be

exercised on a case-by-case basis. When

any of these authorities are exercised,

the District’s DoH must notify EPA

Region III in writing:

(1) Applicability determinations for

sources during the title V permitting

process and as sought by an owner/

operator of an affected source through a

formal, written request, e.g., 40 CFR

63.1 and applicable sections of relevant

standards1;

(2) Responsibility for determining

compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements, e.g., 40 CFR

63.6(e) and applicable sections of

relevant standards;

(3) Responsibility for determining

compliance with non-opacity standards,

e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(f) and applicable

sections of relevant standards;

(4) Responsibility for determining

compliance with opacity and visible

emission standards, e.g., 40 CFR 63.6(h)

and applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(5) Approval of site-specific test

plans2, e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(c)(2)(i) and (d)

and applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(6) Approval of minor alternatives to

test methods, as defined in 40 CFR

63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(i) and

applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(7) Approval of intermediate

alternatives to test methods, as defined

in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR

63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and applicable

sections of relevant standards;

(8) Approval of shorter sampling

times/volumes when necessitated by

process variables and other factors, e.g.,

40 CFR 63.7(e)(2)(iii) and applicable

sections of relevant standards;

(9) Waiver of performance testing,

e.g., 40 CFR 63.7 (e)(2)(iv), (h)(2), and

(h)(3) and applicable sections of

relevant standards;

(10) Approval of site-specific

performance evaluation (monitoring)

plans3, e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and (e)(1)

and applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(11) Approval of minor alternatives to

monitoring methods, as defined in 40

CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.8(f) and

applicable sections of relevant

standards;

(12) Approval of intermediate

alternatives to monitoring methods, as

defined in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR

63.8(f) and applicable sections of

relevant standards;

(13) Approval of adjustments to time

periods for submitting reports, e.g., 40

CFR 63.9 and 63.10 and applicable

sections of relevant standards; and

(14) Approval of minor alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting, as defined

in 40 CFR 63.90(a), e.g., 40 CFR 63.10(f)

and applicable sections of relevant

standards.

As required, the District’s DoH and

EPA Region III will provide the

necessary written, verbal and/or

electronic notification to ensure that

each agency is fully informed regarding

the interpretation of applicable

regulations in 40 CFR part 63. In

instances where there is a conflict

between a DoH interpretation and a

Federal interpretation of applicable

regulations in 40 CFR part 63, the

Federal interpretation must be applied if

it is more stringent than that of DoH.

Written, verbal and/or electronic

notification will also be used to ensure

that each agency is informed of the

compliance status of affected sources in

the District of Columbia. The District’s

DoH will comply with all of the

requirements of 40 CFR 63.91(g)(1)(ii).

Quarterly reports will be submitted to

EPA by the District’s DoH to identify

sources determined to be applicable

during that quarter.

Although the District’s DoH has

primary authority and responsibility to

implement and enforce the hazardous

air pollutant general provisions and

hazardous air pollutant emission

standards for perchloroethylene

drycleaning facilities, hard and

decorative chromium electroplating and

chromium anodizing tanks, halogenated

solvent cleaning, publicly owned

treatment works and the hazardous

pollutant test methods, nothing shall

preclude, limit, or interfere with the

authority of EPA to exercise its

enforcement, investigatory, and

information gathering authorities

concerning this part of the Act.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving the District DoH’s

request for delegation of authority to

implement and enforce its hazardous air

pollutant general provisions and its

regulations for perchloroethylene

drycleaning facilities, hard and

decorative chromium electroplating and

chromium anodizing tanks, halogenated

solvent cleaning, publicly owned

treatment works and hazardous

pollutant test methods which have been

adopted by reference from 40 CFR part

63, subparts A, M, N, T, VVV and

Appendix A, respectively. This

approval will automatically delegate

future amendments to these regulations.

In addition, EPA is approving of DoH’s

mechanism for receiving delegation of

future hazardous air pollutant

regulations which it adopts, unchanged,

from the Federal requirements. This

mechanism entails legal adoption by the

District of Columbia of the amendments

or rules into Section 700 of Title 20 of

the DCMR, DoH’s notification to EPA of

such incorporation and DoH’s

submission of a delegation request letter

to EPA following notification by EPA of

a new Federal requirement. This action

pertains only to affected sources, as

defined by 40 CFR part 63. The

delegation of authority shall be

administered in accordance with the

terms outlined in this document. This

delegation of authority is codified in 40

CFR 63.99.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial rule

and anticipates no adverse comment

because the District DoH’s request for

delegation of the hazardous pollutant

general provisions and the hazardous air

pollutant regulations pertaining to

perchloroethylene drycleaning facilities,

hard and decorative chromium

electroplating and chromium anodizing

tanks, halogenated solvent cleaning,

publicly owned treatment works and

test methods and its request for

automatic delegation of future

amendments to these rules and future

standards, when specifically identified,

does not alter the stringency of these

regulations and is in accordance with all

program approval regulations. However,

66324 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of

today’s Federal Register, EPA is

publishing a separate document that

will serve as the proposal to approve of

DoH’s request for delegation if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be

effective on February 25, 2002 without

further notice unless EPA receives

adverse comment by January 25, 2002.

If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. EPA

will address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time. Please note that

if EPA receives adverse comment on an

amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001)). This action merely approves

state law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule also does not

have tribal implications because it will

not have a substantial direct effect on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This

action also does not have Federalism

implications because it does not

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

CAA. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing requests for rule

approval under CAA section 112, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. In this context, in the absence

of a prior existing requirement for the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove requests for rule approval

under CAA section 112 for failure to use

VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for EPA, when it reviews

a request for rule approval under CAA

section 112, to use VCS in place of a

request for rule approval under CAA

section 112 that otherwise satisfies the

provisions of the CAA. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by February 25, 2002. 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, pertaining to the approval

of DoH’s delegation of authority for the

hazardous air pollutant general

provisions and regulations for

perchloroethylene dry cleaning

facilities, hard and decorative

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing tanks, halogenated solvent

cleaning, publicly owned treatment

works and test methods (CAA section

112), may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control , Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: December 11, 2001.

Judith M. Katz,

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III.

40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

2. Section 63.99 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(9) to read as

follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(9) District of Columbia.

(i) The District of Columbia is

delegated the authority to implement

and enforce the regulations in 40 CFR

part 63, subparts A, M, N, T, VVV and

Appendix A and all future unchanged

40 CFR part 63 standards and

amendments, if delegation of future

standards and amendments is sought by

the District of Columbia Department of

Health and approved by EPA Region III,

at affected sources, as defined by 40

CFR part 63, in accordance with the

final rule, dated December 26, 2001,

effective February 25, 2002, and any

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 66325

mutually acceptable amendments to the

terms described in the direct final rule.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–31485 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301198; FRL–6816–2]

RIN 2070–AB78

Imazapic; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

tolerance for combined residues of

imazapic, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-

(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-

yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid

and its metabolite (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-

methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1Himidazol-2-yl]-5-hydroxymethyl-3-

pyridinecarboxylic acid, both free CL

263284 and conjugated CL 189215) in or

on grass, forage and grass, hay and the

combined residues of imazapic and its

metabolite CL 263284 in or on milk; fat,

meat, and meat byproducts (except

kidney) of cattle, goats, horses, and

sheep; and kidney of cattle, goats,

horses, and sheep. BASF requested this

tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

DATES: This regulation is effective

December 26, 2001. Objections and

requests for hearings, identified by

docket control number OPP–301198,

must be received by EPA on or before

February 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301198 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: James A. Tompkins, Product

Manager (PM) 25, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

305–5697; and e-mail address:

tompkins.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently

updated electronic version of 40 CFR

part 180 is available at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/

cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a

beta site currently under development.

To access the OPPTS Harmonized

Guidelines referenced in this document,

go directly to the guidelines at http://

www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/

guidelin.htm.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–301198. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, and other

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of August 24,

2000 (65 FR 51608) (FRL–6598–6), EPA

issued a notice pursuant to section 408

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

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

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104–

170) announcing the filing of a pesticide

petition (PP 9F5092) for tolerance by

American Cyanamid Company, P.O. Box

400, Princeton, NJ 08543–0400. This

notice included a summary of the

petition prepared by American

Cyanamid, the registrant at the time of

filing. The current registrant for the

chemical is BASF, at the same address.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR

180.490(a) be amended by establishing a

tolerance for combined residues of the

herbicide imazapic and its

hydroxymethyl metabolite, both free (CL

263284) and conjugated (CL 189215) in

or on the raw agricultural commodities

grass, forage at 35 ppm, and grass, hay

at 15 parts per million (ppm).

Tolerances were also proposed for the

combined residues of imazapic and its

free hydroxymethyl metabolite in or on

milk at 0.1 ppm; fat, meat, and meat

byproducts (except kidney) of cattle,

goats, horses, and sheep at 0.1 ppm; and

kidney of cattle, goats, horses, and

sheep at 2.0 ppm.

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

allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to

mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from