2720 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

5The Commission’s deletion of the reporting

requirement is based, in part, on the existence of

the NFA Clearinghouse which provides an adequate

substitute mechanism by which SROs may obtain

disciplinary information. Should there be any

material changes in the operation of the NFA

Clearinghouse, the Commission would necessarily

evaluate the need for any supplementary reporting

requirements.

6The JCC was formed in May 1989 and consists

of senior compliance officials from each exchange

and the NFA. Commission staff is present at each

meeting as observers. The JCC was established to

aid the development of improved compliance

systems through joint exchange efforts and

information sharing among the self-regulators. In

addition, the JCC has undertaken efforts to enhance

exchange compliance with Commission regulations

by developing uniform standards and definitions

where appropriate.

7The ten uniform categories of rule violations

adopted by the JCC include: trade practice, sales

practice, speculative position limits, financial,

financial and position reporting, floor

recordkeeping, office recordkeeping, registration,

decorum and attire, and general conduct.

8Commission Regulation 1.63 prohibits an

individual from serving on exchange disciplinary

committees, oversight panels, arbitration panels or

governing boards who, among other things, was

found within the prior three years by a final

decision of a SRO, an administrative law judge, a

court of competent jurisdiction or the Commission

to have committed a disciplinary offense or who

currently is subject to an agreement with the

Commission or any SRO not to apply for

registration with the Commission or membership in

any SRO. For a complete listing of the conditions

under Commission Regulation 1.63 that prohibit an

individual from serving on such exchange

committees, panels, or boards, see 55 FR 7884

(March 6, 1990).

electronically filing their respective

disciplinary actions into the NFA

Clearinghouse in an accurate and timely

manner, including disciplinary actions

taken against an FCM or any of its

associated persons by the Commission

or by another SRO, thus satisfying the

purpose of Regulation 33.4(b)(6).

Typically, exchanges enter directly or

with the assistance of NFA, disciplinary

action data into the NFA Clearinghouse

in an accurate and timely manner.5

The disciplinary action data that the

exchanges have agreed to enter into the

NFA Clearinghouse by the NFA and that

are being entered include: (1) The

respondent’s name; (2) the rule number

violated and a description of the rule;

(3) which of the ten uniform categories

of rule violations adopted by the Joint

Compliance Committee (‘‘JCC’’),6

applies to the disciplinary action; 7 (4)

the date of the violation; (5) the effective

date of the disciplinary action; (6) the

sanction or penalty imposed on the

named respondent; (7) the name of the

exchange committee that imposed the

sanction; and (8) whether the offense

cited is one that renders the named

respondent ineligible from serving on an

exchange disciplinary committee,

oversight panel, arbitration panel or

governing board under the requirements

of Commission Regulation 1.63.8

In addition, on March 15, 1995, the

Commission advised the JCC that the

Clearinghouse must include exchange

membership denial actions and

requested that the exchange enter into

the Clearinghouse all membership

denial actions from January 1990 to the

present to bring the Clearinghouse upto-date. Currently, the exchanges are

entering such data into the

Clearinghouse.

V. Conclusion

The Commission believes that,

consistent with the other deletions

made of Regulation 33.4(b)(4)(iii) and

Regulation 33.4(b)(8), the requirements

set forth in Regulation 33.4(b)(6) also

should be deleted. The Commission also

believes that the NFA Clearinghouse

satisfies the objective of Regulation

33.4(b)(6) by providing an adequate

repository for, among other things,

exchange disciplinary actions. The

Commission no longer believes that it is

necessary for FCMs that engage in the

offer or sale of Part 33 option contracts

to give notice to the FCM’s DSRO of any

disciplinary action taken against the

FCM or any of its associated persons by

the Commission or by another SRO.

Accordingly, the Commission amends

17 CFR Part 33 by deleting Regulation

33.4(b)(6).

VI. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that

agencies, in proposing rules, consider

the impact of those rules on small

businesses. The Commission previously

has established that contract markets

and FCMs are not ‘‘small entities’’ for

purposes of the RFA. 47 FR 18618–

18621 (April 30, 1982). This deletion to

Part 33 will permit contract markets to

delete rules affecting FCMs and thereby

relieve them of that requirement.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(‘‘PRA’’) 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes

certain requirements on federal agencies

(including the Commission) in

connection with their conducting or

sponsoring any collection of

information as defined by the PRA. In

compliance with the PRA, the

Commission previously submitted this

rule in proposed form and its associated

information collection requirements to

the Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’). The OMB approved the

collection of information associated

with this rule on October 2, 1991 and

assigned OMB control number 3038–

0007 to the rule. While this rule has no

burden, the group of rules of which this

is a part has the following burden:

Average burden hours per response.......50.32.

Number of respondents .....................190,19.7.

Frequency of response .................on occasion.

Copies of the OMB approved

information collection package

associated with this rule may be

obtained from the Office of Management

and Budget, Room 3220, NEOB

Washington, DC, (202) 395–7340.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 33

Regulation of domestic exchangetraded commodity option transactions.

In consideration of the foregoing and

pursuant to the authority contained in

the Act and, in particular, section 4(b)

of the Act, the Commission proposes to

amend Part 33 of Title 17 of the Code

of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 33—REGULATION OF

DOMESTIC EXCHANGE-TRADED

COMMODITY OPTION TRANSACTIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 33

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2, 2a, 4, 6, 6a, 6b, 6e,

6f, 6g, 6i, 6j, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 7, 7a, 7b, 8,

9, 11, 12a, 13a–1, 13b, 19, and 21, unless

otherwise noted.

§ 33.4 [Amended]

2. Section 33.4(b)(6) is removed.

Issued in Washington, DC, January 23,

1996 by the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–1509 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[SD–001; FRL–5406–1]

Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of

Operating Permits Program; State of

South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final full approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating final

full approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of South

Dakota 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2721

information used in developing the final

full 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:

Patricia Reisbeck, 8ART–AP, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite 500,

Denver, Colorado 80202, (303) 312–

6441.

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 September 21, 1995, EPA

published a Federal Register notice

proposing full approval of the Operating

Permits Program (PROGRAM) for the

State of South Dakota. See 60 FR 48942.

EPA received one public comment on

the proposal, which is addressed below,

and is taking final action to promulgate

full approval of the South Dakota

PROGRAM.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The Governor of South Dakota’s

designee, Robert E. Roberts, Secretary of

the Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, submitted the State

of South Dakota Title V Operating

Permit Program (PROGRAM) to EPA on

November 12, 1993. On March 22, 1995,

EPA published a Federal Register

document promulgating final interim

approval of the South Dakota

PROGRAM. See 60 FR 15066. Full

approval of the South Dakota

PROGRAM was not possible at that time

due to the following issue identified

during EPA’s PROGRAM review: The

State’s criminal enforcement statute

only allowed for a maximum penalty of

$1,000 for failure to obtain a permit and

$500 for violation of a permit condition.

The State was required to adopt

legislation consistent with § 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 violation of

operating permit requirements,

including making a false statement and

tampering with a monitoring device. In

a letter dated April 21, 1995, the State

submitted evidence that this corrective

action had been completed, which EPA

has reviewed and has determined to be

adequate to allow for full PROGRAM

approval. This corrective action

included the adoption of Senate Bill 36

by the South Dakota Legislature which

contains the necessary language to allow

for criminal penalties consistent with

§ 70.11.

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. 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. EPA

granted approval of the State’s

PROGRAM, under section 112(l)(5) and

40 CFR 63.91, for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are

unchanged from the Federal standards

as promulgated for part 70 sources in

the Federal Register document

promulgating final interim approval of

the South Dakota PROGRAM. See 60 FR

15066. Based on a State request, EPA is

granting the expansion of this approval

to include non-part 70 sources. EPA

believes this is warranted because State

law does not differentiate between part

70 and non-part 70 sources for purposes

of implementation and enforcement of

section 112 standards that the State

adopts. This approval does not delegate

authority to the State to enforce specific

section 112 standards, but instead

establishes a basis for the State to

request and receive future delegation of

authority to implement and enforce, for

non-part 70 sources, section 112

standards that the State adopts without

change.

The scope of the PROGRAM and all

of the clarifications made in the Federal

Register document proposing interim

approval of the South Dakota

PROGRAM still apply. See 60 FR 2917.

B. Response to Comments

The comment received on the

September 21, 1995 Federal Register

notice proposing full approval of the

South Dakota PROGRAM, and EPA’s

response to that comment, is as follows:

Comment: The commenter noted that

EPA had indicated in its proposal that

approval of South Dakota’s PROGRAM

would not extend to any lands within

Indian Country. The commenter,

apparently referring to South Dakota’s

submission to EPA asserting jurisdiction

to enforce a part 70 PROGRAM within

Indian reservations, expressed

‘‘opposition to South Dakota’s proposal,

insofar as it claims authority over lands

within the boundaries of the Standing

Rock Sioux Reservation.’’ The

commenter asserted that South Dakota’s

jurisdictional arguments ignore the

express language of the Act and the

territorial component of Tribal

sovereignty. The commenter cited

various Supreme Court cases and

provisions of the Act. The commenter

urged EPA to reject South Dakota’s

effort to assert jurisdiction on Indian

reservation lands.

EPA Response: The commenter

correctly noted that EPA’s proposal to

fully approve the State’s part 70

PROGRAM does not extend to ‘‘Indian

Country,’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.

EPA does not believe the commenter

was making an adverse comment on this

aspect of EPA’s proposed action, and

this final action makes no changes to

this aspect of the proposal. As noted in

the proposal and in this action, the State

has asserted it has jurisdiction to

enforce a PROGRAM within Indian

reservations and has provided an

analysis of such jurisdiction. However,

EPA is not acting on the State’s analysis

in this action. Thus, EPA does not

believe the commenter’s objections to

the State’s jurisdictional assertions are

directly pertinent to this action and will

not respond to them here. The

commenter may wish to re-submit such

comments at the time EPA proposes

action on the State’s jurisdictional

analysis.

C. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating full

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of South

Dakota on November 12, 1993. Among

other things, South Dakota 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 is also approving the expansion of

South Dakota’s PROGRAM for receiving
2722 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

delegation of section 112 standards to

include non-part 70 sources.

The scope of South Dakota’s

PROGRAM that EPA is approving in

this notice 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 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 full

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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final full 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 full 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.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this

proposed approval does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new Federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

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: December 14, 1995.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting 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 Regulations:

submitted on November 12, 1993; effective

on February 28, 1996.

(b) (reserved)

[FR Doc. 96–1545 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS–400100; FRL–4995–4]

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting;

Community Right-To-Know; Additional

Time to Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Time extensions for submission

of reports.

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that it will

allow facilities required to submit Toxic

Release Inventory (TRI) reports for

calendar year 1995 until August 1, 1996,

to file those reports. These TRI reports

under section 313 of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act and section 6607 of the

Pollution Prevention Act would

otherwise be due on or before July 1,

1996. Because of unforeseen

circumstances beyond the control of

EPA, EPA has been delayed in

developing and distributing the

reporting package, which includes

extensive materials and guidance for

preparing TRI reports, for the 1995

reporting year. To allow facilities

adequate time to prepare and submit

complete and accurate TRI reports, EPA

is allowing facilities an extra month in

which to report.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria J. Doa, 202-260-9592, e-mail:

doa.maria@epamail.epa.gov, for specific

information on this notice, or for more

information on EPCRA section 313, the

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Hotline, Environmental

Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401

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

free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and

Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD:

1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 313 of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 11023

(EPCRA, which is also referred to as