Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 7939

equal to 177 cubic meters and storedliquid maximum true vapor pressure

greater than or equal to 10.4 kilopascals

and stored-liquid annual average true

vapor pressure greater than or equal to

8.3 kilopascals and annual average HAP

liquid concentration greater than 4

percent by weight total organic HAP; a

storage vessel at a new source that has

a design storage capacity greater than or

equal to 151 cubic meters and storedliquid maximum true vapor pressure

greater than or equal to 3.4 kilopascals

and annual average HAP liquid

concentration greater than 2 percent by

weight total organic HAP; or a storage

vessel at a new source that has a design

storage capacity greater than or equal to

76 cubic meters and less than 151 cubic

meters and stored-liquid maximum true

vapor pressure greater than or equal to

77 kilopascals and annual average HAP

liquid concentration greater than 2

percent by weight total organic HAP.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.646 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.646 Storage vessel provisions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) When an owner or operator and

the Administrator do not agree on

whether the annual average weight

percent organic HAP in the stored liquid

is above or below 4 percent for a storage

vessel at an existing source or above or

below 2 percent for a storage vessel at

a new source, Method 18 of 40 CFR part

60, appendix A shall be used.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–4326 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5689–6]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program;

Delegation of Section 112 Standards;

State of Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

source category-limited interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of

Maine for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements for an

approvable State program to issue

operating permits to all major stationary

sources, and to certain other sources.

EPA is also proposing elsewhere in this

Federal Register to add a sixth interim

approval issue which would require

Maine to remove some of the activities

listed as insignificant in the State’s

rules. See the proposed rulemaking on

Maine’s Title V program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final

interim approval are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: Office of

Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Dahl, (617) 565–4298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (sections 501–507 of the

Clean Air Act (‘‘the Act’’)), and

implementing regulations at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70

require that States develop and submit

operating permits programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by the end of

an interim program, it must establish

and implement a Federal program.

On September 19, 1996, EPA

proposed interim approval of the

operating permits program for the State

of Maine. See 61 FR 49289. The EPA

received comments from the Town of

Jay on the proposal. In this document

EPA is taking final action to promulgate

interim approval of the operating

permits program for the State of Maine.

In addition, EPA is also proposing in

this Federal Register to add a sixth

interim approval issue in response to

the comment from the Town of Jay and

information submitted by other parties

concerned about Jay’s comment.

II. Response to Comments

The comments received on EPA’s

September 19, 1996 proposal to grant

interim approval to the Maine Program

and EPA’s response to those comments

are as follows:

Comment: The Town of Jay believes

that EPA should require the State of

Maine to remove six activities from the

State’s list of insignificant activities.

The six activities are: (1) Paper forming;

(2) vacuum system exhaust; (3) liquor

clarifier and storage tanks and

associated pumping, piping, and

handling; (4) stock cleaning and

pressurized pulp washing; (5) broke

beaters, repulpers, pulp and repulping

tanks, stock chests and bulk pulp

handling; and (6) sewer manholes,

junction boxes, sumps and lift stations

associated with wastewater treatment

systems.

Response: Based on the Town’s

comment and other information EPA

has received concerning this issue, EPA

is proposing in this Federal Register to

require the State of Maine to remove the

six activities listed above from its list of

insignificant activities. Please refer to

the proposed action elsewhere in this

Federal Register for a discussion of this

issue.

III. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating source

category-limited interim approval of the

operating permits program submitted by

the State of Maine on October 23, 1995.

The State must make the changes

specified in the proposed rulemaking,

under II.B., Proposed Action, in order to

be granted full approval. See 61 FR

49292–49293 (September 19, 1996) for a

complete discussion of those

conditions. In brief they are: (1) Failure

to allow for Section 502(b)(10) changes;

(2) failure to require processing ‘‘Part 70

Minor Change’’ within 90 days; (3)

allowing a change at a facility, defined

as ‘‘Part 70 Minor Revision,’’ that could

increase emissions up to 4 tons per year

of a regulated pollutant or 8 tons per

year for all regulated pollutants to be

processed without EPA or affected state

review; (4) allowing a facility, under

limited circumstances, to continue to

emit up to the previous licensed level

for up to 24 months after the license is

amended; and (5) allowing an activity

that emits between 1 and 4 tons of

hazardous air pollutants to be classified

as insignificant.

The scope of the State of Maine’s Part

70 program approved in this document

applies to all Part 70 sources (as defined

in the approved program) within the

State of Maine, except any sources of air

pollution over which an Indian Tribe

has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813,

55815–18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term

‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined under the Act

as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or

other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village,

which is Federally recognized as

eligible for the special programs and

services provided by the United States

to Indians because of their status as
7940 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Indians.’’ See section 302(r) of the CAA;

see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25,

1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993). EPA

is taking no position in this notice on

the question whether any Indian Tribe

located in Maine has jurisdiction over

sources of air pollution.

This interim approval extends until

March 22, 1999. During this interim

approval period, the State of Maine is

protected from sanctions, and EPA is

not obligated to promulgate, administer

and enforce a Federal operating permits

program in the State of Maine. Permits

issued under a program with interim

approval have full standing with respect

to part 70, and the 1-year time period for

submittal of permit applications by

subject sources begins upon the

effective date of this interim approval,

as does the 3-year time period for

processing the initial permit

applications.

If the State of Maine fails to submit a

complete corrective program for full

approval by September 21, 1998, EPA

will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the State of

Maine then fails to submit a corrective

program that EPA finds complete before

the expiration of that 18-month period,

EPA will be required to apply one of the

sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act,

which will remain in effect until EPA

determines that the State of Maine has

corrected the deficiency by submitting a

complete corrective program. If, six

months after application of the first

sanction, the State of Maine still has not

submitted a corrective program that EPA

has found complete, a second sanction

will be required.

If EPA disapproves the State of

Maine’s complete corrective program,

EPA will be required to apply one of the

section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18

months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

State of Maine has submitted a revised

program and EPA has determined that it

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

the disapproval. If, six months after EPA

applies the first sanction, the State of

Maine has not submitted a revised

program that EPA has determined

corrects the deficiencies, a second

sanction is required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the expiration of an interim

approval period if the State of Maine

has not timely submitted a complete

corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective

program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to the State of

Maine program by the expiration of this

interim approval, since the expiration

would occur after November 15, 1995,

EPA would be required to promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for the State of Maine

upon interim approval expiration.

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to Part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the State’s

program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. As discussed in the

September 19, 1996 proposal to approve

Maine’s authority to take delegation of

section 112 standards, Maine submitted

a supplemental letter dated June 24,

1996 addressing the 112(l)(5)

requirements for area/minor sources.

Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40

CFR 63.91 of the State’s program for

receiving delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from

Federal standards as promulgated. This

program for delegations applies to

sources covered by the Part 70 program

as well as area/minor sources.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final interim approval, including

comments received by the State of

Maine and reviewed by EPA on the

proposal, are contained in the docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this final

interim approval. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 April 22, 1997.

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).)

C. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 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

$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. Additionally, it will not cost

$100 million to operate or comply with

this program.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, as added 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

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 7941

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, and

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Appendix A to Part 70 is amended

by adding the entry for Maine in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of

State and Local Operating Permits Programs

* * * * *

Maine

(a) Department of Environmental

Protection: submitted on October 23, 1995;

source category-limited interim approval

effective on March 24, 1997; source categorylimited interim approval expires March 22,

1999.

(b) [Reserved]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–4327 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300449; FRL–5583–4]

RIN 2070-AB78

Benoxacor; Time-Limited Tolerances

for Residues

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for combined

residues of 4-(dichloroacetyl)-3,4-

dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazine

(benoxacor) when used as an inert

ingredient (safener) in pesticide

formulations containing metolachlor in

or on raw agricultural commodities for

which tolerances have been established

for metolachlor. This regulation is being

issued in response to a petition for the

establishment of a tolerance for residues

of benoxacor requested by Ciba-Geigy

Corp.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective February 14, 1997 and

expires on February 14, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket control number, [OPP-300449],

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, [OPP300449], must also be 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 a copy of objections and

hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202.

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 [OPP300449]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic copies of

objections and hearing requests on this

rule may be filed on-line at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Kerry B. Leifer, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location, telephone

number, and e-mail address: Sixth

Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Crystal

Drive Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA, (703)-308-8811, e-mail: leifer.kerry

@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA, at

the request of Ciba, Crop Protection,

pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

21 U.S.C. 346a(e), is establishing

tolerances for residues of the inert

ingredient (safener) 4-(dichloroacetyl)-

3,4-dihydro-3-methyl-2H-1,4-

benzoxazine (benoxacor) at 0.01 part per

million (ppm) in or on raw agricultural

commodities for which tolerances have

been established for metolachlor. These

tolerances will expire on February 14,

1998. A notice of filing of a tolerance

petition, including the petitioner’s

summary of the information, data and

arguments in support of their petition

was published in the Federal Register

on November 5, 1996 (61 FR 56954).

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the notice of

filing.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

A time-limited tolerance was

established for benoxacor when used as

an inert ingredient (safener) in pesticide

formulations containing metolachlor in

or on raw agricultural commodities for

which tolerances have been established

for metolachlor and published in the

Federal Register on June 30, 1992 (57

FR 29031). The time-limited tolerance

expired on December 1, 1996. This timelimited tolerance was established to

allow for the submission and Agency

review of chronic toxicity/oncogenicity

data on benoxacor. The requisite

chronic toxicity/oncogenicity studies in

the rat and mouse were submitted by

the petitioner; however, the Agency’s

review of the data is not yet complete.

In order to allow the for the continued

use of benoxacor as a safener in

formulations of metolachlor while the

EPA continues its review of the

submitted oncogenicity data, the

petitioner has requested that the timelimited tolerance be extended until such

time as the Agency is able to make a

definitive determination as to the safety

of the tolerance.

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104-170) was

signed into law August 3, 1996. FQPA

amends both the 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.

New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) 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