45732 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Control of landfill gas emissions

from existing municipal solid waste

landfills, submitted on December 9,

1996, and the associated rule adopted

by the State on December 20, 1996 (LAC

33.III.3003B, Table 2).

* * * * *

3. A new center heading consisting of

§§ 62.4631 and 62.4632 is added to read

as follows:

§ 62.4931 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to all existing

municipal solid waste landfills with

design capacities greater than 2.5

million megagrams and non-methane

organic emissions greater than 50

megagrams per year as described in 40

CFR part 60, subpart Cc.

§ 62.4932 Effective date.

The effective date of the portion of the

plan applicable to existing municipal

solid waste landfills is October 28, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–21814 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL–5884–6]

Extension of Operating Permits

Program Interim Approvals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

revisions to Appendix A of the

operating permits regulations codified

in part 70 of chapter I of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations. Those

regulations were originally promulgated

on July 21, 1992. These revisions to

Appendix A extend up to October 1,

1998 all operating permits program

interim approvals that expire before that

date. This action will allow the program

revisions necessary to correct interim

approval deficiencies to be combined

with program revisions necessary to

implement the revisions to part 70 that

are anticipated to promulgated midsummer of 1998.

DATES: The regulatory amendments

announced herein take effect on

September 29, 1997. For those programs

whose interim approval dates are

amended by today’s action, interim

approval will expire on October 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Supporting material used in

developing the proposal and final

regulatory revisions is contained in

Docket Number A–93–50. This docket is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

address listed below. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying. The

address of the EPA air docket is: EPA

Air Docket, Mail Code 2311, Attention:

Docket Number A–93–50, Room M–

1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Powell (telephone 919–541–

5331), Mail Drop 12, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Information Transfer and

Program Integration Division, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44460)

and August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45530), EPA

proposed revisions to the part 70

operating permits regulations. Primarily,

the notices proposed changes to the

system for revising permits. A number

of other less detailed proposed changes

were included in the notices.

Altogether, State and local permitting

authorities will have a complicated

package of program revisions to prepare

in response to these changes once

promulgated. The part 70 revisions are

anticipated to take place in mid-summer

of 1998.

Contemporaneous with permitting

authorities revising their programs to

meet the revised part 70, many

programs have been granted interim

approval which will require permitting

authorities to prepare program revisions

to correct those deficiencies identified

in the interim approval notice. The

preamble to the August 31, 1995

proposal noted the concern of many

permitting authorities over having to

revise their programs twice; once to

correct interim approval deficiencies,

and again to address the revisions to

part 70. In the August 1995 preamble,

the Agency proposed that States with

interim approval ‘‘* * * should be

allowed to delay the submittal of any

program revisions to address program

deficiencies previously listed in their

notice of interim approval until the

deadline to submit other changes

required by the proposed revisions to

part 70’’ (60 FR 45552). Comment was

solicited on this action and on a legal

rationale. The Agency also proposed

‘‘* * * to exercise its discretion under

proposed section 70.4(i)(1)(iv) to

provide States 2 years to submit

program revisions in response to the

proposed part 70 revisions * * *’’ (60

FR 45551).

In combination, these actions could

extend all interim approvals such that

permitting authorities would not have to

submit program revisions addressing

interim approval deficiencies until up to

2 years after part 70 is revised. Six

comments were received on this subject

during the public comment period on

the August 1995 proposal. Five of these

commenters supported either the

extension or efforts to minimize the

burden on permitting authorities, but

none provided a reasonable legal

rationale. One of the commenters

indicated the action is not consistent

with title V.

II. Discussion

On October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56368),

EPA amended section 70.4(d)(2) to

allow the Administrator to grant the

proposed additional extension to

interim approvals. The Agency does not

believe, however, that the August 31,

1995 blanket proposal to extend all

interim approval program revision

submittal dates until up to 2 years after

part 70 is revised is appropriate.

Program deficiencies that caused

granting of interim approval of

permitting programs vary from a few

problems that can be easily corrected to

complex problems that will require

regulatory changes and, in some cases,

legislative action. Where an undue

burden will be encountered by

developing two program revisions,

combining program revisions and thus

granting a longer time period for

submission of the program revision to

correct interim approval deficiencies is

warranted. Where no such burden will

occur, the Agency encourages

permitting authorities to proceed with

correcting their interim approval

program deficiencies and not wait for

the revised part 70.

To encourage permitting authorities to

proceed with program revisions within

their interim approval timeframes,

rather than wait for the revised part 70,

all interim approvals granted prior to

the date of issuance of a memorandum

announcing EPA’s position on this issue

(memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman

to Regional Division Directors,

‘‘Extension of Interim Approvals of

Operating Permits Programs,’’ June 13,

1996) were extended in the October

1996 notice by 10 months. The June

1996 memorandum is in the docket for

this action.

The reason for this automatic

extension was that permitting

authorities, upon reading the August

1995 proposed action, may have

delayed their efforts to develop program

revisions to address interim approval

deficiencies because they believed the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45733

1Several States have been granted source-category

limited interim approvals. Under that type

approval, a subset of the part 70 source population

is to submit permit applications during the first

year of the program. The application submittal

period for the remaining sources begins upon full

approval of the program. The Agency concludes

this second group of sources should still submit

permit applications during a period beginning on

the original expiration date of a State’s interim

approval as opposed to that date extended by 10

months. The other interim approval program

deficiencies, however, will be eligible for the 10-

month extension.

proposed policy to extend interim

approvals until revised part 70 program

revisions are due would be adopted for

all programs. The EPA has been

informed that this was the case in many

States. Approximately 10 months

passed since the August 1995 proposal

until issuance of the memorandum

previously noted. The additional 10-

month extension to all interim

approvals offset any time lost in

permitting authority efforts to develop

program revisions addressing interim

approval deficiencies. This 10-month

extension was not applicable to

application submittal dates for the

second group of sources covered by a

source-category limited interim

approval.1

As noted in the June 1996

memorandum, where the permitting

authority applies for it after part 70 is

revised, EPA may grant a longer

extension to an interim approval so that

the program revision to correct interim

approval program deficiencies may be

combined with the program revision to

meet the revised part 70. Such

extensions will only be granted once per

State and will not be of a duration

which exceeds 2 years after

promulgation of revisions to part 70.

Such a request must be made within 30

days of promulgation of the part 70

revisions. This will make it possible for

EPA to take a single rulemaking action

(if such action is warranted) to adopt

new interim approval deadlines. All

programs with interim approval are

eligible for this longer extension, even if

interim approval was granted after the

June 1996 memorandum.

As required by section 70.4(f)(2),

program revisions addressing interim

approval deficiencies must be submitted

to EPA no later than 6 months prior to

the expiration of the interim approval.

The dates for permitting authorities to

submit their combined program

revisions to address the revised part 70

and the interim approval deficiencies

will be 6 months prior to the interim

approval expiration dates which will be

set through a future rulemaking.

Any longer extension allowing

combining of program revisions to meet

both the revised part 70 and interim

approval deficiencies will occur only

once for a permitting authority and will

be based on the promulgation date of

the revisions to part 70. If only

regulatory changes to a program are

needed to meet the revised part 70, the

extension may be for up to 18 months

after the part 70 revisions. If legislative

changes are needed to a program to meet

the revised part 70, the extension may

be for up to 2 years. As previously

noted, the program revision submittal

date will be 6 months prior to expiration

of the extended interim approval.

III. Rulemaking Action

The June 13, 1996 memorandum and

the October 31, 1996 notice anticipated

promulgation of the part 70 revisions no

later than early 1997. The EPA believes

that the action in this rulemaking notice

is necessary because of further delays in

promulgation of the part 70 revisions.

Due to these delays, a number of interim

approvals will expire before part 70 is

revised, thus denying these agencies the

opportunity to combine program

revisions. The EPA has been informed

that States were relying on the October

31, 1996 notice, which anticipated a

promulgation date of early 1997 for part

70 revisions, and expected to be able to

combine their interim approval

deficiencies with the program revisions

to address the revised part 70. However,

now that the EPA anticipates a midsummer 1998 promulgation date for the

part 70 revisions, the Agency estimates

that it may take until October 1, 1998 to

receive all State requests for combining

program revisions and to take the

necessary rulemaking action to grant the

final extension to those interim

approvals. The action in this notice,

therefore, moves all interim approvals

that expire before October 1, 1998 up to

that date. All agencies with interim

approvals prior to October 1, 1998 will,

therefore, be granted interim approval

extensions until that date to have the

opportunity to submit requests to

combine program revisions.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket for this regulatory action

is A–93–50. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed rulemaking. The principal

purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow

interested parties a means to identify

and locate documents so that they can

effectively participate in the rulemaking

process, and (2) to serve as the record

in case of judicial review (except for

interagency review materials). The

docket is available for public inspection

at EPA’s Air Docket, which is listed

under the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

B. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether each regulatory

action is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore

subject to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Order. The Order

defines ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action

as one that is likely to lead to a rule that

may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more,

adversely and materially affecting a

sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency.

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof.

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in E.O. 12866.

Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866,

it has been determined that this action

is not a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action

because it does not substantially change

the existing part 70 requirements for

States or sources; requirements which

have already undergone OMB review.

Rather than impose any new

requirements, this action only extends

an existing mechanism. As such, this

action is exempted from OMB review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Compliance

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator certifies that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. In developing

the original part 70 regulations, the

Agency determined that they would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Similarly, the same conclusion was

reached in an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis performed in support

of the proposed part 70 revisions (a

subset of which constitutes the action in

this rulemaking notice). This action

does not substantially alter the part 70

regulations as they pertain to small

entities and accordingly will not have a
45734 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the

information collection requirements

contained in part 70 under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0243. The Information Collection

Request (ICR) prepared for part 70 is not

affected by the action in this rulemaking

notice because the part 70 ICR

determined burden on a nationwide

basis, assuming all part 70 sources were

included without regard to the approval

status of individual programs. The

action in this rulemaking notice, which

simply provides for an extension of the

interim approval of certain programs,

does not alter the assumptions of the

approved part 70 ICR used in

determining the burden estimate.

Furthermore, this action does not

impose any additional requirements

which would add to the information

collection requirements for sources or

permitting authorities.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques, to:

Director, Regulatory Information

Division, Office of Policy, Planning,

and Evaluation (2136), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460.

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Include the ICR number in any

correspondence.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with Federal mandates that may result

in expenditures to State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any 1 year.

The EPA has determined that the

action in this rulemaking notice does

not contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector, in any 1 year. Although

the part 70 regulations governing State

operating permit programs impose

significant Federal mandates, this action

does not amend the part 70 regulations

in a way that significantly alters the

expenditures resulting from these

mandates. Therefore, the Agency

concludes that it is not required by

section 202 of the UMRA of 1995 to

provide a written statement to

accompany this regulatory action.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office.

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

this Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, air

pollution control, prevention of

significant deterioration, new source

review, fugitive emissions, particulate

matter, volatile organic compounds,

nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,

hydrocarbons, lead, operating permits.

Dated: August 22, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as set

forth below.

Appendix A of part 70 is amended by

the following:

a. Adding a sentence to the end of

paragraph (a) under Virgin Islands;

b. Revising the third sentence of

paragraph (a) under Texas; and

c. Replacing the end date of each

paragraph with ‘‘October 1, 1998’’ as

follows: Paragraph (a) of Arkansas,

Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida,

Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,

Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota,

Wisconsin, and Wyoming; Paragraphs

(a) through (m), (o), (p), (r) through (w),

(bb), (cc), (ee), (ff), and (hh) of

California; paragraphs (b) and (c) of

Nevada; paragraphs (a) and (e) of

Tennessee; and paragraphs (a) through

(i) of Washington.

Appendix A—to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

Arkansas

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

California * * *

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

(b) * * * October 1, 1998.

(c) * * * October 1, 1998.

(d) * * * October 1, 1998.

(e) * * * October 1, 1998.

(f) * * * October 1, 1998.

(g) * * * October 1, 1998.

(h) * * * October 1, 1998.

(i) * * * October 1, 1998.

(j) * * * October 1, 1998.

(k) * * * October 1, 1998.

(l) * * * October 1, 1998.

(m) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(o) * * * October 1, 1998.

(p) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(r) * * * October 1, 1998.

(s) * * * October 1, 1998.

(t) * * * October 1, 1998.

(u) * * * October 1, 1998.

(v) * * * October 1, 1998.

(w) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(bb) * * * October 1, 1998.

(cc) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(ee) * * * October 1, 1998.

(ff) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(hh) * * * October 1, 1998.

Colorado

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

District of Columbia

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Florida

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Hawaii

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Illinois

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Iowa

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Maryland

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Minnesota

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45735

Montana

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Nevada

(a) * * *

(b) * * * October 1, 1998.

(c) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

North Dakota

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Tennessee

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(e) * * * October 1, 1998.

Texas

(a) * * * Interim approval will expire

October 1, 1998. * * *

* * * * *

Virgin Islands

(a) * * * Interim approval will expire

October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Washington

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

(b) * * * October 1, 1998.

(c) * * * October 1, 1998.

(d) * * * October 1, 1998.

(e) * * * October 1, 1998.

(f) * * * October 1, 1998.

(g) * * * October 1, 1998.

(h) * * * October 1, 1998.

(i) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Wisconsin

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

* * * * *

Wyoming

(a) * * * October 1, 1998.

[FR Doc. 97–23033 Filed 8–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300534; FRL–5738–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerances for

Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a

time-limited tolerance for combined

residues of cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine) and its

metabolite, melamine (1,3,5-triazine2,4,6-triamine) in or on dry bulb onions.

This action is in response to EPA’s

granting of an emergency exemption

under section 18 of the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act authorizing use of the pesticide on

onion seed in California. This regulation

establishes a maximum permissible

level for residues of cyromazine in this

food commodity pursuant to section

408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996. The

tolerance will expire and is revoked on

July 31, 1998.

DATES: This regulation is effective

August 29, 1997. Objections and

requests for hearings must be received

by EPA on or before October 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP–300534],

must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

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

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk identified

by the docket control number, [OPP–

300534], must also be submitted to:

Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

a copy of objections and hearing

requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

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

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number [OPP–

300534]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Stephen Schaible, Registration

Division 7505C, Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308-9362, e-mail:

schaible.stephen@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, on

its own initiative, pursuant to section

408(e) and (l)(6) of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21

U.S.C. 346a(e) and (l)(6), is establishing

a tolerance for combined residues of the

insecticide cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine) and its

metabolite, melamine (1,3,5-triazine2,4,6-triamine), in or on dry bulb onions

at 0.3 part per million (ppm). This

tolerance will expire and is revoked on

July 31, 1998. EPA will publish a

document in the Federal Register to

remove the revoked tolerance from the

Code of Federal Regulations.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the Federal Food, Drug,

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

301 et seq., and the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq . The FQPA

amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

These activities are described below and

discussed in greater detail in the final

rule establishing the time-limited

tolerance associated with the emergency

exemption for use of propiconazole on

sorghum (61 FR 58135, November 13,

1996)(FRL–5572–9).

New 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 aggregate exposure to the

pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section

408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special

consideration to exposure of infants and

children to the pesticide chemical

residue in establishing a tolerance and

to ‘‘ensure that there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result to