15066 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

• Test methods to determine VOC

content of coatings and VOC emissions

from control devices. BAAQMD submitted Rule 8–49,

‘‘Aerosol Paint Products,’’ is a new rule

that contains the following significant

features to control VOC emissions: • Limits VOC content of aerosol coating products; • Requires that labels stating VOC

content be affixed to the aerosol paint container; • Requires records of coating sales to

be kept; • Specifies test methods to be used in

order to determine VOC content of aerosol coatings. EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the following BAAQMD rules are being

approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D: Rules 8–1, General Provisions; 8–2, Miscellaneous Operations; 8–4, General Surface Coating and Solvent Operations; 8–7, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; 8–

12, Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating; 8–

15 Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts; 8–

20, Graphic Arts Printing and Coating Operations; 8–24, Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Operations; 8–

30, Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations; 8–31, Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products; 8–32, Wood

Products Coating; 8–34, Solid Waste Disposal Sites; 8–35, Ink, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing; 8–40, Aeration of Contaminated Soil and Removal of Underground Storage Tanks; 8–41, Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations; 8–45, Mobile Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations; and 8–49, Aerosol Paint Products. EPA Action Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements. EPA is publishing this notice 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 May 22, 1995,

unless, by April 21, 1995, 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 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 May 22, 1995. Regulatory Process 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 population of less

than 50,000. SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) 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. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2). The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds. Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 3, 1995. David P. Howekamp, Acting Regional Administrator. Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(189)(i)(C), (199)(i)(A)(6), and (210) and by adding

and reserving paragraph (c)(209) to read

as follows: § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(189) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (1) Rule 8–49, adopted on August 21, 1992. * * * * *

(199) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(6) Rules 8–4, 8–7, 8–15, 8–31, and 8–

41 adopted on June 1, 1994. Rules 8–1, 8–2, 8–12, 8–20, 8–24, 8–30, 8–34, 8–35, and 8–40 adopted on June 15, 1994. Rule 8–32 adopted on July 6, 1994. * * * * *

(209) [Reserved]

(210) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on December 22, 1994 by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. (1) Rule 8–45, adopted on November 2, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95–7010 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[SD–001; FRL–5176–7] Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; State of South Dakota AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final interim approval. SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating Permits Program submitted by the State of South Dakota for the purpose of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15067

complying with Federal requirements

for an approvable State Program to issue operating permits to all major stationary

sources, and to certain other sources. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 21, 1995. 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: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Farris, 8ART–AP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 294–

7539. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Purpose A. Introduction 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 (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 one 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 two years. If EPA

has not fully approved a program by two

years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a Federal program. On January 12, 1995 EPA published a Federal Register notice proposing

interim approval of the Operating Permits Program for the State of South Dakota (PROGRAM). See 60 FR 2917. The EPA received adverse comments on

this proposed interim approval, which

are summarized and addressed below. In this rulemaking EPA is taking final action to promulgate interim approval of

the South Dakota PROGRAM.

II. Final Action and Implications A. Analysis of State Submission Robert E. Roberts, Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as designee of the Governor of South Dakota, submitted the State of South Dakota Title V Operating Permit

Program (PROGRAM) to EPA on November 12, 1993. Amendments to the PROGRAM requested by EPA were

received on January 11, 1994 and December 15, 1994. The South Dakota PROGRAM, including the operating permit regulations (Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Article 74:36, Air Pollution Control Program), substantially meets the requirements of 40 CFR 70.2 and 70.3 with respect to

applicability; 40 CFR 70.4, 70.5, and

70.6 with respect to permit content

including operational flexibility; 40 CFR

70.5 with respect to complete

application forms and criteria which

define insignificant activities; 40 CFR

70.7 with respect to public participation

and minor permit modifications; and 40 CFR 70.11 with respect to requirements

for enforcement authority. Comments noting deficiencies in the South Dakota PROGRAM were sent to

the State in a letter dated July 8, 1994. The deficiencies were segregated into

those that require corrective action prior

to interim PROGRAM approval, and

those that require corrective action prior

to full PROGRAM approval. In a letter dated August 18, 1994, the State

committed to complete the regulatory process to correct both interim and full PROGRAM approval deficiencies

related to its PROGRAM regulations, and submit these changes to EPA by

approximately December 15, 1994. EPA

responded in a letter dated October 3, 1994 that they would review all of the State’s corrective actions. However, these corrective actions would be

considered a material change to the PROGRAM and the date for final

interim approval would be extended. The State adopted the regulatory

changes on November 17, 1994, which

EPA has reviewed and has determined

to be adequate to allow for interim

approval. One remaining issue noted in

EPA’s July 8, 1994 letter that requires corrective action prior to full PROGRAM approval is discussed below

in section C Final Action. B. Response to Comments The comments received on the

January 12, 1995 Federal Register notice proposing interim approval of the South Dakota PROGRAM, and EPA’s response

to those comments, are as follows: Comment #1: Two commenters objected to EPA’s proposed approval of South Dakota’s preconstruction

permitting program for purpose of

implementing section 112(g) of the Act during the transition period between

PROGRAM approval and adoption of a State rule implementing EPA’s section

112(g) regulations. The commenters argued that there is no legal basis for

delegating to South Dakota the section

112(g) program until EPA has promulgated a section 112(g) regulation

and the State has a section 112(g) program in place. In addition, the

commenters argued that the South Dakota PROGRAM fails to address critical threshold questions of when an

emission increase is greater than de minimis and when, if it is, it has been

offset satisfactorily. EPA Response: In its proposed

approval of South Dakota’s PROGRAM, EPA also proposed to approve South Dakota’s preconstruction permitting program for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) of the Act during the transition period before a Federal rule had been promulgated

implementing section 112(g). This proposal was based in part on an

interpretation of the Act that would

require sources to comply with section

112(g) beginning on the date of approval of the title V program, regardless of whether EPA had completed its section

112(g) rulemaking. The EPA has since

revised this interpretation of the Act. See 60 FR 8333 (dated February 14, 1995). This revised interpretation

postpones the effective date of section

112(g) until after EPA has promulgated

a rule addressing that provision. Questions regarding the threshold for determining when an emission increase

is greater than de minimis and when it has been offset satisfactorily will be

addressed in the final section 112(g) rule. The 112(g) interpretive notice

explains that EPA is still considering whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule

so as to allow States time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule, and that EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of section 112(g), South Dakota must be able to implement section 112(g) during the period

between promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of

implementing State regulations. EPA

believes that South Dakota can utilize

its preconstruction review program to

serve as a procedural vehicle for

implementing section 112(g) and making these requirements Federally

enforceable between promulgation of

the Federal section 112(g) rule and

adoption of implementing State

regulations. The EPA approval of South Dakota’s preconstruction review

program clarifies that it may be used for

this purpose during any transition

period to meet the requirements of
15068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

section 112(g). South Dakota’s preconstruction permitting program

allows permit requirements to be

established for all regulated air pollutants (which is defined at ASRD

70:36:01:15 and includes all of the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) listed

in section 112(b) of the Act). Comment #2: Two commenters stated

that they did not have a problem with

the way ‘‘prompt’’ is defined for deviation reporting in the South Dakota PROGRAM but added that they did have

a problem with the way the definition

has been handled in other interim

approval notices. EPA Response: The South Dakota PROGRAM allows the State to define

‘‘prompt’’ for deviation reporting in

each individual permit. Since the

commenters did not have a problem

with the way ‘‘prompt’’ reporting of deviations is handled in South Dakota, EPA will not respond to that comment. In addition, it would be inappropriate in

this notice to comment on how the definition of ‘‘prompt’’ was handled in

notices for other states’ part 70

approvals. C. Final Action The EPA is promulgating interim

approval of the Operating Permits Program submitted by the State of South Dakota on November 12, 1993. The State must complete the following corrective

action to receive full PROGRAM

approval: 1) The State must adopt

legislation consistent with 40 CFR 70.11 prior to receiving full PROGRAM

approval to allow for a maximum

criminal fine of not less than $10,000 per day per violation for knowing violations of operating permit requirements, including making a false

statement and tampering with a monitoring device. Refer to the technical support document accompanying this

rulemaking for a detailed explanation of

this PROGRAM deficiency and the

required corrective action. The scope of South Dakota’s final

interim PROGRAM approval does not extend to ‘‘Indian Country,’’ as defined

in 18 U.S.C. 1151, including the

following ‘‘existing or former’’ Indian

reservations in the State: 1. Cheyenne River; 2. Crow Creek; 3. Flandreau; 4. Lower Brule; 5. Pine Ridge; 6. Rosebud; 7. Sisseton; 8. Standing Rock; and 9. Yankton. The State has asserted it has

jurisdiction to enforce a part 70 program

within some or all of these ‘‘existing or

former’’ Indian reservations and has provided an analysis of such

jurisdiction. EPA is in the process of evaluating the State’s analysis and will

issue a supplemental notice regarding

this issue in the future. Before EPA would approve the State’s PROGRAM

for any portion of ‘‘Indian Country,’’ EPA would have to be satisfied that the State has authority, either pursuant to

explicit Congressional authorization or applicable principles of Federal Indian

law, to enforce its laws against existing

and potential pollution sources within

any geographical area for which it seeks program approval and that such

approval would constitute sound

administrative practice. This is a

complex and controversial issue, and

EPA does not wish to delay interim

approval of the State’s PROGRAM with

respect to undisputed sources while EPA resolves this question. In deferring final action on

PROGRAM approval for sources located

in ‘‘Indian Country,’’ EPA is not making

a determination that the State either has adequate jurisdiction or lacks such

jurisdiction. Instead, EPA is deferring

judgment regarding this issue pending EPA’s evaluation of the State’s analysis. This interim PROGRAM approval, which may not be renewed, extends until April 22, 1997. During this interim

approval period, the State of South Dakota is protected from sanctions, and

EPA is not obligated to promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program in the State of South Dakota. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have

full standing with respect to part 70, and the one year time period for submittal of permit applications by

subject sources begins upon the

effective date of this interim approval, as does the three year time period for processing the initial permit applications. If the State of South Dakota fails to

submit a complete corrective PROGRAM for full approval by October 22, 1996, EPA will start an 18-month

clock for mandatory sanctions. If the State of South Dakota 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 South Dakota has corrected the deficiency by submitting a

complete corrective PROGRAM. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a

lack of good faith on the part of the State of South Dakota, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the

expiration of the 18-month period until

the Administrator determines that the State of South Dakota has come into

compliance. In any case, if, six months after application of the first sanction,

the State of South Dakota still has not submitted a corrective PROGRAM that EPA has found complete, a second

sanction will be required. If EPA disapproves the State of South Dakota’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 South Dakota has submitted a revised

PROGRAM and EPA has determined

that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if

the Administrator finds a lack of good

faith on the part of the State of South Dakota, both sanctions under section

179(b) shall apply after the expiration of

the 18-month period until the Administrator determines that the State of South Dakota has come into

compliance. In all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the State of South Dakota 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 South Dakota 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 South Dakota PROGRAM by the expiration of

this interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program

for the State of South Dakota 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. Therefore, the EPA is 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 only applies to sources covered by the part 70 program. EPA is also finalizing its approval of South Dakota’s combined

preconstruction/operating permit program found in section 74:36:05 of the State’s regulations under the authority
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15069

of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose of providing a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during any

transition period between EPA’s promulgation of a section 112(g) rule

and adoption by the State of rules to

implement section 112(g). However, since this approval is for the single purpose of providing a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during any

transition period, the approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in

the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not subject to the requirements of

the rule until State regulations are

adopted. The EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to 12 months

following promulgation by EPA of the

final section 112(g) rule.

III. Administrative Requirements A. Docket Copies of the State’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final interim approval, including public

comments received and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are maintained in

a docket 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. Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from Executive Order 12866 review. C. 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 14, 1995. William P. Yellowtail, Regional Administrator. Part 70, chapter I, 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 South Dakota in

alphabetical order to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs

* * * * * South Dakota

(a) South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division

of Environmental Regulation: submitted on November 12, 1993; effective on April 21, 1995; interim approval expires April 22, 1997. (b) Reserved.

[FR Doc. 95–7064 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300376A; FRL–4941–4] RIN 2070–AB78

Isopropyl Myristate; Tolerance Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document establishes exemptions from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of isopropyl myristate when used as a solvent in

pesticide formulations. Technology Sciences Group, Inc., on behalf of Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd., requested

this regulation. EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective March 22, 1995. ADDRESSES: Written objections, identified by the document control number, [OPP-300376A], 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 request

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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto, Registration

Support Branch, Registration Division

(7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8375. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 1, 1995 (60 FR 6053), EPA issued a proposed rule

that gave notice that Technological Sciences Group, Inc., Pesticide Division, Steuart Street Tower 2700, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, CA 94105-1475, had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 3E04245 to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section

408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR

180.1001(c) and (e) by establishing

exemptions from the requirement of a

tolerance for isopropyl myristate when

used as a solvent in pesticide

formulations applied to growing crops, raw agricultural commodities, and

animals. Inert ingredients are all ingredients

that are not active ingredients as defined

in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not limited to, the following types of

ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty

acids; carriers such as clay and

diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing

agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not

intended to imply nontoxicity; the

ingredient may or may not be

chemically active. There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the proposed

rule. The data submitted relevant to the proposal and other relevant material have been evaluated and discussed in

the proposed rule. Based on the data

and information considered, the Agency

concludes that the tolerance exemptions will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance exemptions are

established as set forth below. Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after