DAQ-2024-010200

15105Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 55 /Wednesday, March 22, 1995 /Proposed Rules
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will be withdrawn and all public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:
[e-mail].
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
15107Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 55 /Wednesday, March 22, 1995 /Proposed Rules
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 non-
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 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
15109Federal Register /Vol. 60, No. 55 /Wednesday, March 22, 1995 /Proposed Rules
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 non-
part 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