19522 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)).

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

June 19, 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).)

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 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 SS—Texas

2. Section 52.2308 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.2308 Area-wide nitrogen oxides (NOX)

exemptions.

* * * * *

(d) The TNRCC submitted to the EPA

on August 17, 1994, with supplemental

information submitted on August 31,

1994, and September 9, 1994, a petition

requesting that the Houston and

Beaumont ozone nonattainment areas be

temporarily exempted from the NOX

control requirements of section 182(f) of

the CAA. The Houston nonattainment

area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort

Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,

Montgomery, and Waller counties. The

Beaumont nonattainment area consists

of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange

counties. The exemption request was

based on photochemical grid modeling

which shows that reductions in NOX

would not contribute to attaining the

ozone NAAQS. On April 12, 1995, the

EPA approved the State’s request for a

temporary exemption. Approval of the

temporary exemption waives the federal

requirements for NOX Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT),

New Source Review (NSR), conformity,

and vehicle inspection and maintenance

(I/M) for the period of the temporary

exemption. The temporary exemption

automatically expires on December 31,

1996, without further notice from the

EPA. Based on the rationale provided in

the notice of proposed rulemaking on

this action, upon the expiration of the

temporary exemption, the requirements

pertaining to NOX RACT, NSR,

conformity, and I/M will again become

applicable, except that the NOX RACT

implementation date applicable to the

Houston and Beaumont nonattainment

areas under section 182(f) shall be as

expeditious as practicable but no later

than May 31, 1997, unless the State has

received a permanent NOX exemption

from the EPA prior to that time.

[FR Doc. 95–9567 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 144–4–6973b; FRL–5194–6]

California State Implementation Plan

Revision Interim Final Determination

that State has Corrected Deficiencies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, EPA has published a notice of

proposed rulemaking fully approving

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan. The revisions

include a rule from the South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD): SCAQMD Rule 1153,

Commercial Bakery Ovens. Based on the

proposed full approval, EPA is making

an interim final determination by this

action that the State has corrected the

deficiency for which sanctions clocks

were activated on September 29, 1993.

This action will defer the application of

the offset sanctions and defer the

application of the highway sanctions.

Although the interim final action is

effective upon publication, EPA will

take comment. If no comments are

received on EPA’s proposed approval of

the State’s submittal, EPA will finalize

its determination that the State has

corrected the deficiency that started the

sanctions clocks by publishing a final

action in the Federal Register. If

comments are received on EPA’s

proposed approval and this interim final

action, EPA will publish a final action

taking into consideration any comments

received.

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 1995.

Comments: Comments must be

received by May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

The State submittal and EPA’s

analysis for that submittal, which are

the basis for this action, are available for

public review at the above address and

at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Telephone: (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 13, 1991, the State submitted

SCAQMD Rule 1153, Commercial

Bakery Ovens, which EPA disapproved

in part on September 29, 1993. 58 FR

50850. EPA’s disapproval action started

an 18-month clock for the imposition of

one sanction (followed by a second

sanction 6 months later) and a 24-month

clock for promulgation of a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP). The State

subsequently submitted a revised rule

on February 24, 1995. The revised rule

was adopted by the SCAQMD on

January 13, 1995. In the Proposed Rules

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA

has proposed full approval of the State

of California’s submittal of SCAQMD

Rule 1153, Commercial Bakery Ovens.

Based on the proposed approval set

forth in today’s Federal Register, EPA

believes that it is more likely than not

that the State has corrected the original

disapproval deficiency. Therefore, EPA

is taking this interim final rulemaking

action, effective on publication, finding

that the State has corrected the

deficiency. However, EPA is also

providing the public with an

opportunity to comment on this final

action. If, based on any comments on

this action and any comments on EPA’s

proposed full approval of the State’s

submittal, EPA determines that the

State’s submittal is not fully approvable
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19523

1As previously noted, however, by this action

EPA is providing the public with a chance to

comment on EPA’s determination after the effective

date and EPA will consider any comments received

in determining whether to reverse such action.

and this final action was inappropriate,

EPA will either propose or take final

action finding that the State has not

corrected the original disapproval

deficiency. As appropriate, EPA will

also issue an interim final determination

or a final determination that the

deficiency has not been corrected. Until

EPA takes such an action, the

application of sanctions will continue to

be deferred and/or stayed.

This action does not stop the

sanctions clock that started for this area

on September 29, 1993. However, this

action will defer the application of the

offsets sanctions and will defer the

imposition of the highway sanctions.

See 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994). If EPA

publishes a notice of final rulemaking

fully approving the State’s submittal,

such action will permanently stop the

sanctions clock and will permanently

lift any applied, stayed or deferred

sanctions. If EPA must withdraw the

proposed full approval based on adverse

comments and EPA subsequently

determines that the State, in fact, did

not correct the disapproval deficiency,

the sanctions consequences described in

the sanctions rule will apply. See 59 FR

39832, to be codified at 40 CFR 52.31.

II. EPA Action

EPA is taking interim final action

finding that the State has corrected the

disapproval deficiency that started the

sanctions clocks. Based on this action,

imposition of the offset sanctions will

be deferred and imposition of the

highway sanctions will be deferred until

EPA’s final action fully approving the

State’s submittal becomes effective or

until EPA takes action proposing or

disapproving in whole or part the State

submittal. If EPA’s proposed rulemaking

action fully approving the State

submittal becomes final, at that time any

sanctions clocks will be permanently

stopped and any applied, stayed or

deferred sanctions will be permanently

lifted.

Because EPA has preliminarily

determined that the State has corrected

the deficiency identified in EPA’s

limited disapproval actions, relief from

sanctions should be provided as quickly

as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking

the good cause exception under the

Administrative Procedure Act in not

providing an opportunity for comment

before this action takes effect.1 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3). EPA believes that notice-andcomment rulemaking before the

effective date of this action is

impracticable and contrary to the public

interest. EPA has reviewed the State’s

submittal and, through its proposed

action is indicating that it is more likely

than not that the State has corrected the

deficiencies that started the sanctions

clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public

interest to initially impose sanctions or

to keep applied sanctions in place when

the State has most likely done all it can

to correct the deficiencies that triggered

the sanctions clocks.

Moreover, it would be impracticable

to go through notice-and-comment

rulemaking on a finding that the State

has corrected the deficiencies prior to

the rulemaking approving the State’s

submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that

it is necessary to use the interim final

rulemaking process to temporarily stay

or defer sanctions while EPA completes

its rulemaking process on the

approvability of the State’s submittal.

Moreover, with respect to the effective

date of this action, EPA is invoking the

good cause exception to the 30-day

notice requirement of the APA because

the purpose of this notice is to relieve

a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

III. 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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This action temporarily relieves

sources of an additional burden

potentially placed on them by the

sanctions provisions of the Act.

Therefore, I certify that it does not have

an impact on any small entities.

The Office of Management and Budget

(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,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

John C. Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9706 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4F4334/R2114; FRL–4941–2]

RIN 2070–AB78

Poly-D-Glucosamine (Chitosan);

Exemption from the Requirement of a

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the biochemical

growth regulator poly-D-glucosamine

(hereafter referred to as chitosan) when

used as a seed treatment in or on rice.

Based on the nontoxic nature of this

chemical, the Agency is also

establishing an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of poly-D-glucosamine when used as a

pesticide in the production of any raw

agricultural commodities. Vanson L.P.

requested this exemption.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective April 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections,

identified by the document control

number, [PP 4F4334/R2114], 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 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: Joanne Miller, Product Manager

(PM) 23, Registration Division (7505C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 237, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

7830; E-mail:

miller.joanne@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of November 2, 1994

(59 FR 54907), EPA issued a notice that

Vanson L.P., 8840, 152nd Ave.,