Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15105

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

state’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for this approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by April 21,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Daniel A.

Meer, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik

H. Beck, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3),

Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Telephone:

(415) 744–1190. Internet E-mail:

beck.erik@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns Bay Area Air

Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) rules submitted to EPA by

the California Air Resources Board

(CARB). The titles and numbers of these

rules are listed below along with their

adoption and submission dates.

Number Title Adoption Submittal

8–1 ........... General Provisions .................................................................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–2 ........... Miscellaneous Operations ......................................................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–4 ........... General Surface Coating and Solvent Operations ................................................................................... 6/01/94 9/28/94

8–7 ........... Gasoline Dispensing Facilities .................................................................................................................. 6/01/94 9/28/94

8–12 ......... Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating ............................................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–15 ......... Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts ................................................................................................................. 6/01/94 9/28/94

8–20 ......... Graphic Arts Printing and Coating Operations ......................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–24 ......... Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Manufacturing Operations ........................................................................ 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–30 ......... Semiconductor Manufacturing Operations ................................................................................................ 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–31 ......... Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products ........................................................................................ 6/01/94 9/28/94

8–32 ......... Wood Products Coating ............................................................................................................................ 7/06/94 9/28/94

8–34 ......... Solid Waste Disposal Sites ....................................................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–35 ......... Ink, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing ............................................................................................... 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–40 ......... Aeration of Contaminated Soil and Removal of Underground Storage Tanks ........................................ 6/15/94 9/28/94

8–41 ......... Vegetable Oil Manufacturing Operations .................................................................................................. 6/01/94 9/28/94

8–45 ......... Mobile Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations ..................................................................... 11/02/94 12/22/94

8–49 ......... Aerosol Paint Products .............................................................................................................................. 8/21/92 9/14/92

For further information, please see the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7009 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[UT–001; FRL–5176–6]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval

of Operating Permits Program;

Approval of Construction Permit

Program Under Section 112(l); State of

Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes full

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of Utah

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 also proposes

approval of the Utah Construction

Permit Program under section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act for the purpose of

creating Federally enforceable permit

conditions for sources of hazardous air

pollutants listed pursuant to section

112(b) of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

April 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the contact indicated

below. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other supporting information used

in developing these proposed approvals

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, Air Programs Branch, 999

18th Street, suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202, (303) 294–7539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments (sections

501–507 of the Clean Air Act (‘‘the

Act’’)), EPA has promulgated rules

which define the minimum elements of

an approvable State operating permits

program and the corresponding

standards and procedures by which the

EPA will approve, oversee, and

withdraw approval of State operating
15106 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July

21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

70 (part 70). Title V requires States to

develop, and submit to EPA, programs

for issuing these operating permits to all

major stationary sources and to certain

other sources.

The Act requires that states develop

and submit these 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 2 years

after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Support Materials

The Governor of Utah submitted the

State of Utah Title V Operating Permit

Program (PROGRAM) to EPA on April

14, 1994. EPA deemed the PROGRAM

administratively and technically

complete in a letter to the Governor

dated May 12, 1994. Additional

documentation for the PROGRAM

submittal was received on August 25,

1994. The PROGRAM submittal

includes a legal opinion from the

Attorney General of Utah stating that the

laws of the State provide adequate legal

authority to carry out all aspects of the

PROGRAM, and a description of how

the State intends to implement the

PROGRAM. The submittal additionally

contains evidence of proper adoption of

the PROGRAM regulations and a permit

fee demonstration.

2. Regulations and Program

Implementation

The Utah PROGRAM, including the

operating permit regulation (Utah

Administrative Code Rule R307–15,

Operating Permit Requirements), meets

the requirements of 40 CFR parts 70.2

and 70.3 with respect to applicability;

parts 70.4, 70.5, and 70.6 with respect

to permit content including operational

flexibility; part 70.5 with respect to

complete application forms and criteria

which define insignificant activities;

part 70.7 with respect to public

participation and minor permit

modifications; and part 70.11 with

respect to requirements for enforcement

authority.

R307–15–3 contains the PROGRAM

definitions. EPA is aware that other

Utah regulations may contain similar,

but not identical, definitions as those

contained in R307–15–3. For purposes

of this PROGRAM approval, EPA wishes

to clarify that the binding definitions are

those contained in R307–15–3.

R307–15–5(5) of the State’s permitting

regulation lists the insignificant

activities that sources do not have to

include in their operating permit

application. This list includes specific

activities and sources which are

considered to be insignificant. This

provision states that the source’s

application may not omit information

needed to determine applicable

requirements or to evaluate the fee

amount required.

Utah has the authority to issue a

variance from requirements imposed by

State law. Section 16–2–113, Utah Code

Ann., provides that any person may

apply to the board for a variance from

its rules. The board may grant the

requested variance, ‘‘if it determines

that the hardship imposed by

compliance would outweigh the benefit

to the public.’’ This authority is limited

by regulation: Utah Administrative Code

section R307–1–2.3 provides that the

board may grant variances to the extent

provided under law, unless prohibited

by the Act. Other statutory provisions of

State law require that the operating

permit program must meet the

requirements of title V of the Act. See,

section 19–2–104(1)(f) and 19–1–109.1

(c)–(d), Utah Code Ann.

In addition to these limitations, EPA

regards Utah’s variance provision as

wholly external to the PROGRAM

submitted for approval under part 70,

and consequently is proposing to take

no action on this provision of State law.

EPA has no authority to approve

provisions of State law, such as the

variance provision referred to, which

are inconsistent with part 70. EPA does

not recognize the ability of a permitting

authority to grant relief from the duty to

comply with a Federally enforceable

part 70 permit, except where such relief

is granted through procedures allowed

by part 70. If the State uses its variance

provision strictly to establish a

compliance schedule for a source that

will be incorporated into a title V

permit, then EPA would consider this

an acceptable use of a variance

provision. However, the routine process

for establishing a compliance schedule

is through appropriate enforcement

action. EPA reserves the right to enforce

the terms of the part 70 permit where

the permitting authority purports to

grant relief from the duty to comply

with a part 70 permit in a manner

inconsistent with part 70 procedures.

Part 70 of the Federal operating

permit regulation requires prompt

reporting of deviations from the permit

requirements. Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)

of that regulation requires the

permitting authority to define prompt in

relation to the degree and type of

deviation likely to occur and the

applicable requirements. Although the

permit program regulations should

define prompt for purposes of

administrative efficiency and clarity, an

acceptable alternative is to define

prompt in each individual permit. The

EPA believes that prompt should

generally be defined as requiring

reporting within two to ten days of the

deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient

time in most cases to protect public

health and safety as well as to provide

a forewarning of potential problems. For

sources with a low level of excess

emissions, a longer time period may be

acceptable. However, prompt reporting

must be more frequent than the

semiannual reporting requirement,

given this is a distinct reporting

obligation under section

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of the Federal operating

permit regulation. Where ‘‘prompt’’ is

defined in the individual permit but not

in the program regulations, EPA may

veto permits that do not contain

sufficiently prompt reporting of

deviations. The Utah PROGRAM will

define prompt reporting of deviations in

each permit consistent with the degree

and type of deviation likely and the

applicable requirements (see subsection

R307–15–6(1)(c)(iii)(B) of the Utah

permitting rule). Deviations from permit

requirements due to unavoidable

breakdowns shall be reported according

to the unavoidable breakdown

provisions of the Utah Administrative

Code section R307–1–4.7.

R307–15–7(4)(a)(ii) allows for

emissions trading within a permitted

facility where the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) allows for such emissions

trades without requiring a permit

revision, consistent with 40 CFR

70.4(b)(12)(ii). However, the approved

Utah SIP does not provide for such

trading at this time.

R307–15–7(5)(a)(v) correctly allows

the State to incorporate the terms of a

construction permit (i.e., an ‘‘approval

order’’) into an operating permit using

the administrative permit amendment

process. This process will be available

when a source requests enhanced

procedures in the issuance of its

construction permit that are

‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to the

operating permit issuance or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15107

modification procedures. ‘‘Substantial

equivalence’’ between the construction

permit and operating permit issuance

procedures necessarily includes, among

other things, public and affected state

review as well as EPA’s 45-day review

period and veto authority.

Comments noting deficiencies in the

Utah PROGRAM were sent to the State

in a letter dated October 28, 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 November 30, 1994, the State

committed to complete the corrective

actions required for interim PROGRAM

approval. The Utah Air Quality Board

adopted amendments to R307–15 on

February 23, 1995 which adequately

addressed all deficiencies identified in

the PROGRAM regulations. A letter

from the Attorney General’s office dated

February 27, 1995 transmitted these

regulation changes, which become

effective April 15, 1995. The changes

that addressed the deficiencies in the

PROGRAM summary were transmitted

to EPA by the State in a letter dated

February 28, 1995.

Refer to the Technical Support

Document accompanying this

rulemaking for a detailed explanation of

each PROGRAM deficiency and the

corrective actions completed by the

State.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

The State of Utah established an

initial fee for regulated air pollutants

below the presumptive minimum set in

title V, section 502 and part 70, and was

required to submit a detailed permit fee

demonstration as part of its PROGRAM

submittal. The basis of this fee

demonstration included a workload

analysis, which estimated the annual

cost of running the PROGRAM in fiscal

year (FY) 1995 to be $2,386,895 based

on the estimated direct and indirect

costs of the PROGRAM, and a projected

emission inventory for fiscal year 1995.

The permit fee established for FY 1995

is $21.70 per ton of actual emissions of

a regulated pollutant, with an emissions

cap of 4,000 tons per year per pollutant.

This fee structure will be reevaluated

each year. After careful review, the State

of Utah has determined that these fees

would support the Utah PROGRAM

costs as required by section 70.9(a) of

the Federal operating permit regulation.

Upon review of this demonstration, the

EPA noted the following concern: State

law generally provides authority to

assess and collect annual permit fees in

an amount sufficient to cover all

reasonable direct and indirect costs of

the program. However, section A.1 of

the PROGRAM description found in

volume 1, part II.A., of the State’s title

V submittal indicates that the Utah

Legislature must authorize permit fees

on a yearly basis. If permit fees

sufficient to fund all the costs of the

PROGRAM are not authorized, and the

State is not able to fully implement the

PROGRAM, then EPA would be

required to disapprove or withdraw the

part 70 program, impose sanctions, and

implement a Federal permitting

program.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and/or Commitments for

Section 112 Implementation. Utah has

demonstrated in its PROGRAM

submittal adequate legal authority to

implement and enforce all section 112

requirements through the title V permit.

This legal authority is contained in

Utah’s enabling legislation and in

regulatory provisions defining

‘‘applicable requirements’’ and stating

that the permit must incorporate all

applicable requirements. EPA has

determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow Utah to issue permits

that assure compliance with all section

112 requirements, and to carry out all

section 112 activities. For further

rationale on this interpretation, please

refer to the Technical Support

Document accompanying this

rulemaking and the April 13, 1993

guidance memorandum titled ‘‘Title V

Program Approval Criteria for Section

112 Activities,’’ signed by John Seitz,

Director of the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards.

b. Implementation of Section 112(g).

On February 14, 1995 EPA published an

interpretive notice (see 60 FR 8333) that

postpones the effective date of section

112(g) until after EPA has promulgated

a rule addressing that provision. The

section 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), Utah

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 Utah can utilize its

construction 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. For this

reason, EPA is proposing to approve

Utah’s construction permitting program

found in section R307–1–3 of the State’s

regulations under the authority of title

V and part 70 solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) during the

transition period to meet the

requirements of section 112(g). Since

the approval would be for the single

purpose of providing a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during the

transition period, the approval would 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.

Also, since the approval would be for

the limited purpose of allowing the

State sufficient time to adopt

regulations, EPA proposes to limit the

duration of the approval to 12 months

following promulgation by EPA of its

section 112(g) rule. Utah’s construction

permitting program allows permit

requirements to be established for all air

contaminants (which is defined in

R307–1–1 of the Utah Administrative

Code and includes all of the hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) listed in section

112(b) of the Act).

c. Program for Straight Delegation of

Section 112 Standards. Requirements

for approval, specified in 40 CFR

§ 70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5)

requirements for approval of a program

for delegation of the provisions of 40

CFR part 63, Subpart A, and section 112

standards promulgated by EPA as they

apply to part 70 sources, as well as nonpart 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,

EPA is also proposing to grant approval

under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part

63.91 of the State’s program for

receiving delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from the

Federal standards as promulgated. Utah

has informed EPA that it intends to

accept delegation of section 112

standards through incorporation by

reference. This program applies to both

existing and future standards.

The radionuclide national emission

standard for HAPs (NESHAP) is a

section 112 regulation and an applicable

requirement under the State PROGRAM.

Currently the State of Utah has no part

70 sources which emit radionuclides.

However, sources which are not

currently part 70 sources may be
15108 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

defined as major and become part 70

sources under forthcoming Federal

radionuclide regulations. In that event,

the State will be responsible for issuing

part 70 permits to those sources.

d. Approval of Construction Permit

Program Under Section 112(l). Also in

this action, EPA is proposing to approve

Utah’s construction permit program in

R307–1–3.1 of the State’s regulations

under the authority provided in section

112(l) of the amended Act for the

purpose of creating Federally

enforceable permit conditions for

sources of HAPs listed pursuant to

section 112(b) of the Act. The State’s

construction permitting rules referenced

above were approved by EPA as part of

the SIP on February 19, 1980 (45 FR

10761–10765). Approval of the State’s

construction permit program under

section 112(l) is necessary to allow the

State to create Federally enforceable

limits on the potential to emit of HAPs,

because SIP approval of the State’s

construction permit rules only extends

to the control of HAPs which are

photochemically reactive organic

compounds or particulate matter.

Federally enforceable limits on

photochemically reactive organic

compounds or particulate matter may

have the incidental effect of limiting

certain HAPs. As a legal matter, no

additional program approval by the EPA

is required in order for those ‘‘criteria’’

pollutant limits to be recognized as

Federally enforceable. However, section

112 of the Act provides the underlying

authority for controlling all HAP

emissions.

The State’s construction permit

program applies to new and modified

sources which would emit ‘‘air

contaminants,’’ which is defined in the

State’s rules as ‘‘any particulate matter

or any gas, vapor, suspended solid or

any combination of them, excluding

steam and water vapors.’’ The State has

defined ‘‘air contaminant’’ in such a

broad manner that it includes HAPs.

Consequently, the State’s construction

permit program provides authority for

the State to issue construction permits

to sources of HAPs.

The criteria used in approving Utah’s

construction permit program in the SIP

are located in 40 CFR 51.160–164. As

detailed in the Technical Support

Document accompanying this notice,

EPA believes the State’s construction

permit program meets the requirements

of 40 CFR 51.160–164. EPA believes the

most significant criteria in 40 CFR Part

51 for creating Federally enforceable

limits through construction permits are

those in 40 CFR 51.160–162. Further, as

discussed in EPA’s January 25, 1995

memorandum from John S. Seitz,

Director of the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, and Robert I.

Van Heuvelen, Director of the Office of

Regulatory Enforcement, entitled

‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to

Emit of a Stationary Source Under

Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air

Act,’’ in order for EPA to consider any

construction permit terms Federally

enforceable, such permit conditions

must be enforceable as a practical

matter. Utah’s program will allow the

State to issue permits that are

enforceable as a practical matter. Thus,

any permits issued in accordance with

the Utah program and which are

practically enforceable would be

considered Federally enforceable.

In addition to meeting the criteria

discussed above, a construction permit

program for HAPs must meet the

statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5) of the Act. This section

allows EPA to approve a program only

if it: (1) Contains adequate authority to

assure compliance with any section 112

standards or requirements; (2) provides

for adequate resources to implement the

program; (3) provides for an expeditious

schedule for assuring compliance with

section 112 requirements; and (4) is

otherwise likely to satisfy the objectives

of the Act.

The EPA plans to codify the approval

criteria for programs limiting the

potential to emit of HAPs through

amendments to Subpart E of 40 CFR

part 63, the regulations promulgated to

implement section 112(l) of the Act.

EPA believes it has the authority under

section 112(l) to approve programs to

limit potential to emit HAPs directly

under section 112(l) prior to this

revision to Subpart E of 40 CFR part 63.

Given the timing problems posed by

impending deadlines under section 112

and title V, EPA believes it is reasonable

to read section 112(l) to allow for

approval of programs to limit potential

to emit prior to issuance of a rule

specifically addressing this issue. The

EPA is therefore proposing approval of

Utah’s construction permit program to

limit the potential to emit of HAPs now,

so that the State may begin to issue

Federally enforceable synthetic minor

permits as soon as possible. The EPA

also plans to codify programs approved

under section 112(l) without further

rulemaking once the revisions to

Subpart E are promulgated.

As discussed above, Utah’s

construction permit program in R307–

1–3.1 has already been approved in the

SIP, and it satisfies the criteria for such

programs, including the relevant criteria

related to creating Federally enforceable

limits in 40 CFR 51.160–162. In

addition, Utah’s construction permit

program meets the statutory criteria for

approval under section 112(l)(5), as

follows:

Regarding the statutory criteria of

section 112(l)(5) referred to above, EPA

believes Utah’s construction permit

program contains adequate authority to

assure compliance with section 112

requirements because the State’s

program does not provide for the waiver

of any section 112 requirement. Sources

that become minor through a permit

issued pursuant to the State’s

construction permit program would still

be required to meet section 112

requirements applicable to non-major

sources.

Regarding the requirement for

adequate resources, the State has

committed in its SIP to provide

adequate resources for all program

activities required by the annual State/

EPA agreement, which includes

construction permitting. Thus, EPA

believes the State has adequate

resources to support the construction

permit program for HAPs, and EPA will

monitor the State’s implementation of

the program to assure that adequate

resources continue to be available.

The EPA also believes that the State’s

rules provide for an expeditious

schedule for assuring compliance with

section 112 requirements. A source

seeking a voluntary limit on its potential

to emit is probably doing so to avoid a

Federal requirement applicable on a

particular date. Nothing in the State’s

program would allow a source to avoid

or delay compliance with the Federal

requirement if it fails to obtain the

appropriate Federally enforceable limit

by the relevant deadline.

Finally, EPA believes it is consistent

with the intent of section 112 of the Act

for States to provide a mechanism

through which sources may avoid

classification as a major source by

obtaining a Federally enforceable limit

on potential to emit.

Accordingly, EPA believes that Utah’s

construction permit program in R307–

1–3.1 of its air quality regulations

satisfies the applicable criteria for

establishing Federally enforceable

limitations for sources of HAPs.

Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of

Utah’s construction permit program in

R307–1–3 of the State’s rules under

section 112(l) of the Act.

Refer to the Technical Support

Document accompanying this

rulemaking for a detailed explanation of

this approval under section 112(l) of the

Act.

e. Program for Implementing Title IV

of the Act. Utah’s PROGRAM contains

adequate authority to issue permits

which reflect the requirements of Title
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15109

IV of the Act, and Utah commits to

adopt the rules and requirements

promulgated by EPA to implement an

acid rain program through the title V

permit.

B. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing full approval of the

operating permits program submitted to

EPA by the State of Utah on April 14,

1994. Among other things, Utah has

demonstrated that the PROGRAM will

be adequate to meet the minimum

elements of a State operating permits

program as specified in 40 CFR part 70.

EPA also proposes approval of the Utah

Construction Permit Program found in

section R307–1–3 of the State’s

regulations under section 112(l) of the

Act for the purpose of creating Federally

enforceable permit conditions for

sources of hazardous air pollutants

listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the

Act, and, under the authority of title V

and 40 CFR part 70, for the purpose of

providing a mechanism to implement

section 112(g) of the Act 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).

In Utah’s part 70 program submission,

the State indicated that it is not seeking

approval from EPA to administer the

State’s part 70 PROGRAM within the

exterior boundaries of Indian

Reservations in Utah. In this notice,

EPA proposes to approve Utah’s part 70

PROGRAM for all areas within the State

except the following: lands within the

exterior boundaries of Indian

Reservations (including the Uintah and

Ouray, Skull Valley, Paiute, Navajo,

Goshute, White Mesa, and Northwestern

Shoshoni Indian Reservations) and any

other areas which are ‘‘Indian Country’’

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151

(excepted areas).

In proposing not to extend the scope

of Utah’s part 70 PROGRAM to sources

located in the excepted areas, EPA is not

making a determination that the State

either has adequate jurisdiction or lacks

jurisdiction over such sources. Should

the State of Utah choose to seek program

approval within these areas, it may do

so without prejudice. Before EPA would

approve the State’s part 70 PROGRAM

for any portion of the excepted areas,

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.

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, EPA is also

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 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 nonpart 70 sources.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed full

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed title V and section 112(l)

approvals are contained in a 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 these

proposed approvals. 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

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by April 21,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA’s actions under section 502 and

section 112(l) 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 and the creation of

Federally enforceable permit conditions

for sources of hazardous air pollutants

listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the

Act. 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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 14, 1995.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7063 Filed 3–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 3E4241/P607; FRL–4941–1]

RIN 2070–AC18

Imazethapyr; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish

tolerances with regional registration for

the sum of the residues of the herbicide

imazethapyr, as its ammonium salt, and

its metabolite in or on the raw

agricultural commodities lettuce and

endive. The Interregional Research

Project No. 4 (IR–4) requested this

proposed regulation.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

document control number, [PP 3E4241/

P607], must be received on or before

April 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments 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

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA

22202.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection