12700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

program. Therefore, USEPA approves

the ECO program for Lake and Porter

Counties.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D, of the Act do

not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976).

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 8, 1995. 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)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Dated: February 10, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(92) On February 25, 1994, Indiana

submitted an employee commute option

rule intended to satisfy the requirements

of section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A)

Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative

Code, Article 19 MOBILE SOURCE

RULES, Rule 1, Employee Commute

Options. Filed with the Secretary of

State, October 28, 1993, effective

November 29, 1993. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 17, Number 3,

December 1, 1993.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5446 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SC19–1–5031a; FRL–5166–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans State:

Disapproval of Revisions to the South

Carolina State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving South

Carolina’s generic bubble regulation

submitted for approval into the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) by the State

of South Carolina through the South

Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC) on June

5, 1985, because it does not comply

with EPA’s Emissions Trading Policy

Statement (ETPS) of December 4, 1986,

or the Economic Incentive Program

Rules (EIP). The policy states that

existing state generic bubble rules

should be reviewed and that a notice be

published identifying any deficiencies

found in the review and giving a means

and a schedule to correct them.

However, since revision of their

federally approved generic rule or

withdrawal of the 1985 submittal will

require legislative action by the State,

South Carolina requested in a letter to

John Hankinson, Regional

Administrator, that EPA disapprove the

submittal. Therefore, EPA is rescinding

the previous approval of the generic

bubble regulations and disapproving the

June 5, 1985 submittal.

DATES: This final rule will be effective

May 8, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 7, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kay T.

Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed

below.

Copies of the documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay

T. Prince, Regulatory Planning and

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555 x4221. Reference file SC19–1–

5031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7,

1982 (47 FR 38887), EPA approved into

the SIP the South Carolina generic

bubble regulation as meeting all EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12701

requirements at that time. On January

14, 1985, the State of South Carolina

through DHEC submitted revisions to

their generic bubble regulation,

requesting concurrent review by EPA.

On June 5, 1985, the State of South

Carolina submitted the state-effective

version of the bubble regulation

(Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 6,

Alternative Emission Limitation

Options (‘‘Bubble’’). Subsequently

EPA’s revised ETPS was published on

December 4, 1986. (51 FR 43814). The

policy indicates that existing state

generic bubble rules should be reviewed

and notices published identifying any

deficiencies and a means to correct

them. It also gives EPA the option to

rescind its previous approval of a

generic bubble rule. (51 FR 43853)

Following enactment of the 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments, EPA promulgated

the EIP on April 7, 1994. (59 FR 16690)

EPA has reviewed both the approved

and revised generic bubble rules and

found them to be deficient with respect

to the ETPS, the EIP, and the provisions

of the 1990 Amendments. Following is

a summary of the review of some of the

deficiencies of the revised generic rule.

Section II—Conditions for Approval

The rule does not provide for federal

enforceability. To assure that Clean Air

Act requirements are met, each

transaction which revises any emission

limit upward must be approved by the

state and be federally enforceable. (e.g.,

51 FR 43832, 59 FR 16700) Revised

limits can be made federally enforceable

through source specific SIP revisions,

federally approved generic bubble

regulations, federally approved EIPs or

construction permits issued through a

federally approved permit program.

Emissions prior to and after the

bubble from all points involved must be

quantifiable, the total emissions

resulting from the bubble must show a

net decrease, and the procedures for

determining the emissions from the

bubble must be replicable. Replicability

generally means a high likelihood that

two decision-makers applying the rule

to a given bubble would reach the same

conclusion. The South Carolina generic

bubble rule does not contain any

provisions to ensure that the calculation

procedures used to quantify the

emissions are replicable. (e.g., 51 FR

43850, 59 FR 16713)

Bubble rules must contain provisions

for determining a baseline emissions

level beyond which the reductions must

occur to be creditable. There are three

baseline factors—emission rate, capacity

utilization, and hours of operation—

which must be used to compute preand post-bubble emission levels.

Baseline factors differ depending on the

status of SIP development for the area.

The South Carolina rule does not

address baseline factors. (e.g., 51 FR

43838, 59 FR 16697)

Section III—Part B.—Emissions of

Volatile Organic Compounds

In general, generic bubble rules for

volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

must require that surface coating

emissions be calculated on a solidsapplied basis and specify a maximum

time period over which emissions may

be averaged in an acceptable

compliance demonstration, usually not

exceeding 24 hours. Averaging times

greater than 24 hours must meet the

criteria outlined in Appendix D of the

ETPS. (51 FR 48857) The South Carolina

rule does not include these

requirements. The South Carolina rule

also does not include the requirements

to meet the extended averaging times

provided in the EIP rule. (e.g., 59 FR

16706)

Final Action

EPA is disapproving the May 24,

1985, version of the South Carolina

generic bubble rule, Regulation No.

62.5, Standard No. 6, as requested by

the State on March 24, 1994, because it

does not meet EPA requirements.

Additionally, EPA is rescinding its

approval of the May 28, 1982, version of

the rule as approved in the Federal

Register on June 7, 1982. (47 FR 38887)

This action is being published 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 8, 1995

unless, by April 7, 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 8, 1995.

The agency has reviewed this request

for revision of the Federally-approved

State implementation plan for

conformance with the provisions of the

1990 Amendments enacted on

November 15, 1990. The Agency has

determined that this action does not

conform with the statute as amended

and must be disapproved. The Agency

has examined the issue of whether this

action should be reviewed only under

the provisions of the law as it existed on

the date of submittal to the Agency (i.e.

prior to November 15, 1990) and has

determined that the Agency must apply

the new law to this revision.

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

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

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 8, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(2).)

The OMB has exempted these actions

from review under Executive Order

12866.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any state

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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under section 110 and subchapter I, Part

D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor
12702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

does it impose any new Federal

requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: January 26, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 PP—South Carolina

2. Section 52.2122, is amended by

designating the introductory text as

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

§ 52.2122 Approval status.

* * * * *

(b) EPA disapproved South Carolina’s

generic bubble regulation submitted for

approval into the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) on June 5, 1985.

[FR Doc. 95–5574 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4328/R2112; FRL–4940–5]

RIN 2070–AB78

Pseudomonas Syringae; Exemption

From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an

exemption from the requirement for a

tolerance for residues of Pseudomonas

syringae in or on all raw agricultural

commodities when applied postharvest

in accordance with good agricultural

practices. EcoScience Corp. requested

this exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective March 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP4F4328/

R2112], 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 a copy of objections and

hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202. Fees accompanying

objections shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

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

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Sheryl K. Reilly, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

(703)–308–8265.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of May 11, 1994 (59 FR

24429), EPA issued a notice that the

EcoScience Corp., One Innovation

Drive, Worcester, MA 01545, had

submitted pesticide petition PP 4F4328

to EPA proposing to amend 40 CFR part

180 by establishing a regulation

pursuant to section 408 of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),

21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to exempt from the

requirement of a tolerance the residues

of the biological control agent, Bio-Save

10, containing the active ingredient

Pseudomonas syringae in or on pears,

apples, lemons, oranges, and grapefruit

when applied postharvest in accordance

with good agricultural practices.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

Pseudomonas syringae is naturally

occurring and was originally isolated

from apples.

The data submitted in the petition

and all other relevant material have

been evaluated. The toxicological data

considered in support of the exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance

include an acute oral toxicity/

pathogenicity study, an acute dermal

toxicity study, an acute pulmonary

toxicity/pathogenicity study, an acute

intravenous toxicity/pathogenicity

study, a primary eye irritation study,

and a primary dermal irritation study.

The results of these studies indicated

that the organism was not toxic to test

animals when administered via oral,

dermal, pulmonary, or intravenous

routes.

The active ingredient was not

infective or pathogenic to test animals

in any of the studies. Minimal ocular

irritation observed in the eye irritation

study dissipated within 5 days; very

slight skin irritation noted immediately

following exposure to the compound

dissipated within 2 days. There have

been no reports of hypersensitivity

related to the active ingredient. All of

the toxicity studies submitted are

considered acceptable.

The toxicology data provided are

sufficient to demonstrate that there are

no foreseeable human health hazards

likely to arise from the use of

Pseudomonas syringae on all raw

agricultural commodities when applied

postharvest in accordance with good

agricultural practices.

Acceptable daily intake (ADI) and

maximum permissible intake (MPI)

considerations are not relevant to this

petition because the data submitted

demonstrated that this biological control

agent is not toxic to humans by dietary

exposure. No enforcement actions are

expected. Therefore, the requirement for

an analytical method for enforcement

purposes is not applicable to this

exemption request. This is the first

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for this biological control

agent.

Based on the information considered,

the Agency concludes that

establishment of a tolerance is not

necessary to protect the public health.

Therefore, the exemption from tolerance

is established as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

to the regulation and may also request

a hearing on those objections.

Objections and hearing requests must be

filed with the Hearing Clerk, at the

address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A

copy of the objections and/or hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

should be submitted to the OPP docket

for this rulemaking. The objections

submitted must specify the provisions

of the regulation deemed objectionable

and the grounds for the objections (40

CFR 178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve