38744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Hospital/medical/infectious

waste incinerators, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 5, 2000

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

40 CFR Part 62, Subpart D, is

amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. A new center heading, and

§§ 62.630, 62.631, and 62.632, are added

to Subpart D to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

§ 62.630 Identification of plan.

The Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality submitted on

November 16, 1999 the State of

Arizona’s section 111(d)/129 Plan for

Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious

Waste Incinerators (HMIWI). The

submitted plan does not apply to

sources located in Pima and Pinal

counties.

§ 62.631 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing HMIWI

for which construction was commenced

on or before June 20, 1996, as described

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

§ 62.632 Effective date.

The effective date of EPA approval of

the plan is August 21, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–15288 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NC–FORS–T5–2000–01a; FRL–6712–5]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of

Operating Permit Program; Forsyth

County (North Carolina)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

fully approve the operating permit

program of the Forsyth County

Environmental Affairs Department.

Forsyth County’s operating permit

program was submitted in response to

the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act

(CAA) Amendments that permitting

authorities develop, and submit to EPA,

programs for issuing operating permits

to all major stationary sources and to

certain other sources within the

permitting authorities’ jurisdiction. EPA

granted interim approval to Forsyth

County’s operating permit program on

November 15, 1995. The County revised

its program to satisfy the conditions of

the interim approval and this action

approves those revisions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 21, 2000 without further

notice unless EPA receives adverse

comments in writing by July 24, 2000.

If adverse comment is received, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of this

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect. The public comments

will be addressed in a subsequent final

rule based on the proposed rule

published in this Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kim

Pierce, Regional Title V Program

Manager, Operating Source Section, Air

& Radiation Technology Branch, EPA,

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of Forsyth County’s

submittals and other supporting

documentation relevant to this action

are available for inspection during

normal business hours at EPA, Air &

Radiation Technology Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Pierce, EPA, Region 4, at (404) 562-

9124.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section provides additional information

by addressing the following questions:

What is the operating permit program?

What is being addressed in this document?

What are the program changes that EPA is

approving?

What is involved in this final action?

What is the Operating Permit Program?

The CAA Amendments of 1990

required all state and local permitting

authorities to develop operating permit

programs that met certain Federal

criteria. In implementing the operating

permit programs, the permitting

authorities require certain sources of air

pollution to obtain permits that contain

all applicable requirements under the

CAA. The focus of the operating permit

program is to improve enforcement by

issuing each source a permit that

consolidates all of the applicable CAA

requirements into a Federally

enforceable document. By consolidating

all of the applicable requirements for a

facility, the source, the public, and the

permitting authorities can more easily

determine what CAA requirements

apply and how compliance with those

requirements is determined.

Sources required to obtain an

operating permit under this program

include: ‘‘major’’ sources of air

pollution and certain other sources

specified in the CAA or in EPA’s

implementing regulations. For example,

all sources regulated under the acid rain

program, regardless of size, must obtain

operating permits. Examples of major

sources include those that have the

potential to emit 100 tons per year or

more of volatile organic compounds,

carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter

(PM10 10); those that emit 10 tons per

year of any single hazardous air

pollutant (specifically listed under the

CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per

year or more of a combination of

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In

areas that are not meeting the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards for

ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate

matter, major sources are defined by the

gravity of the nonattainment

classification. For example, in ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

‘‘serious,’’ major sources include those

with the potential of emitting 50 tons

per year or more of volatile organic

compounds or nitrogen oxides.

What is Being Addressed in This

Document?

Where an operating permit program

substantially, but not fully, met the

criteria outlined in the implementing

regulations codified at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA

granted interim approval contingent on

the state revising its program to correct

the deficiencies. Because Forsyth

County’s operating permit program

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38745

substantially, but not fully, met the

requirements of part 70, EPA granted

interim approval to the program in a

rulemaking published on November 15,

1995 (60 FR 57357). The interim

approval notice stipulated eight

conditions that had to be met in order

for the County’s program to receive full

approval. Forsyth County submitted

nine revisions to its interimly approved

operating permit program; these

revisions were dated September 25,

1995, January 16, 1997, August 1, 1997,

April 22, 1998, October 2, 1998,

February 18, 1999, September 29, 1999,

October 26, 1999, and February 24,

2000. This document describes the

changes that have been made in Forsyth

County’s operating permit program.

What Are the Program Changes That

EPA Is Approving?

Full approval of Forsyth County’s

operating permit program was made

contingent upon the following rule

changes, as stipulated in EPA’s

November 15, 1995 rulemaking:

(1) Revise Rule 3Q.0507 to require

permit applications include all fugitive

emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR

70.3(d). The County revised Rule

3Q.0507(b) to cite 40 CFR 70.3(d) and

the local-effective rule change was

submitted to EPA on August 1, 1997.

(2) Revise Rule 3Q.0502(c) to ensure

that research and development (R&D)

facilities which are collocated with

manufacturing facilities and which are

under common control and belonging to

a single major industrial grouping will

be considered as the same facility for

determining title V applicability. The

County deleted Rule 3Q.0502(c) and the

local-effective rule change was

submitted to EPA on October 26, 1999.

(3) Revise Rule 3Q.0102(b)(2)(B) to

adjust the insignificant emission

threshold levels downward from

potential emissions of 40 tons per year

(tpy) to 5 tpy for criteria pollutants and

1000 pounds per year for HAPs, and to

provide that the activities listed in Rule

3Q.0102(b)(2)(F) are subject to these

caps. In addition, EPA notified the

County on July 15, 1996 of another

deficiency in its insignificant activities

provisions that came to light as a result

of the court decision in Western States

Petroleum Association (WSPA) v. EPA,

87 F.3d 280 (D.C. Cir. 1996): Rule

3Q.0102(a) had inadvertently been

approved without identifying the

exemption of insignificant activities

from permit requirements as a program

deficiency. In the Federal Register

document granting final interim

approval to the Alaska operating permit

program (61 FR 64466, December 5,

1996), EPA acknowledged that its

approval of the insignificant activities

provisions in the North Carolina

programs may have been inconsistent

with the WSPA decision. Further review

revealed this to be true.

Forsyth County addressed the

deficiencies in its insignificant activities

provisions by removing Rule 3Q.0102

from its operating permit program and

revising Rule 3Q.0503 to define two

categories of insignificant activities:

‘‘insignificant activities because of

category’’ and ‘‘insignificant activities

because of size or production rate.’’ The

first category includes:

(a) Mobile sources,

(b) Air conditioning units used for

human comfort that are not subject to

applicable requirements under Title VI

of the Federal Clean Air Act and do not

exhaust air pollutants into the ambient

air from any manufacturing or other

industrial process,

(c) Ventilating and heating units used

for human comfort that do not exhaust

air pollutants into the ambient air from

any manufacturing or other industrial

process,

(d) Noncommercial food preparation,

(e) Consumer use of office equipment,

(f) Janitorial services and consumer

use of janitorial products,

(g) Internal combustion engines used

for landscaping purposes, and

(h) New residential wood heaters

subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart AAA.

The second category, ‘‘insignificant

activities because of size or production

rate,’’ is defined as ‘‘any activity whose

emissions would not violate any

applicable emissions standard and

whose potential emission of particulate,

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile

organic compounds, and carbon

monoxide before air pollution control

devices, i.e., potential uncontrolled

emissions, are each no more than five

tons per year and whose potential

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

before air pollution control devices are

each below 1000 pounds per year.’’ The

County also revised Rule 3Q.0508(f)(3)

to remove the exemption from

monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements for insignificant

activities, and revised Rule 3Q.0508(aa)

to require the inclusion of insignificant

activities in permits. The local-effective

rule changes were submitted to EPA on

October 26, 1999.

(4) Revise Rule 3Q.0514(a) to clarify

that: (a) Administrative permit

amendments may be used to change test

dates or construction dates only as long

as no applicable requirements are

violated in the process, and (b) an

administrative permit amendment may

be used to move terms and conditions

from the state-enforceable portion of the

permit to the state-and Federalenforceable portion of the permit

provided that the term being moved is

a requirement which has become

Federally enforceable through sections

110, 111, 112, or other parts of the Act.

The County added language to Rule

3Q.0514(a)(4) stipulating that changes in

test dates or construction dates qualify

as administrative permit amendments

‘‘provided that no applicable

requirements are violated by the change

in test dates or construction dates.’’ The

County also added language to Rule

3Q.0514(a)(5) stipulating that

administrative permit amendments may

be used to move terms and conditions

from the County-enforceable portion of

the permit to the County-and-Federal

enforceable portion of the permit

‘‘provided that terms and conditions

being moved have become federally

enforceable through section 110, 111, or

112 or other parts of the federal Clean

Air Act.’’ The local-effective rule

changes were submitted to EPA on

August 1, 1997.

(5) Revise Rule 3Q.0515(f) to stipulate

that a permit shield may not be granted

for a minor permit modification. The

County revised Rule 3Q.0515 to

disallow permit shields for minor

permit modifications and submitted the

local-effective rule change to EPA on

August 1, 1997.

(6) Revise Rule 3Q.0515(d) to require

minor permit modifications to be

processed within 90 days after receiving

the application or 15 days after the end

of EPA’s 45-day review period,

whichever is later. The County revised

Rule 3Q.0515(d) accordingly and

submitted the local-effective rule change

to EPA on August 1, 1997.

(7) Revise Rule 3Q.0517(b) to provide

that: (a) a part 70 permit shall be

reopened and reissued within 18

months after a newly applicable

requirement is promulgated, and (b) no

reopening is required if the effective

date of the newly applicable

requirement is after the expiration of the

permit, unless the term of the permit

was extended based on the fact that it

had not been renewed prior to its

expiration. The County revised Rule

3Q.0517(b) to require the completion of

permit reopenings within 18 months

after newly applicable requirements are

promulgated. This rule was also revised

to state that ‘‘[n]o reopening is required

if the effective date of the requirement

is after the expiration of the permit term

unless the term of the permit was

extended pursuant to Rule

.0513(c). . .’’ The local-effective

revised rule was submitted to EPA on

August 1, 1997.

38746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(8) Revise Rule 3Q.0518(f) to remove

the phrase ‘‘subject to adjudication’’

from the requirement to take action on

a complete permit application. The

County deleted Rule 3Q.0518(f) and

submitted the local-effective rule

revision to EPA on September 25, 1995.

Forsyth County made several

additional program changes after EPA

granted interim approval on November

15, 1995. The definition of ‘‘Major

facility’’ as ‘‘a major source as defined

under 40 CFR 70.2’’ was added to Rule

3Q.0103 in the general provisions of the

County’s air quality permitting

regulations. The County submitted the

local-effective rule revision to EPA on

January 16, 1997. The County also

changed the method for determining its

annual title V fee. Forsyth County’s

operating permit program was initially

approved based on use of the

‘‘presumptive minimum’’ fee described

in 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). However, the

County revised Rule 3Q.0204 in October

1996 to use a mechanism based on 40

CFR 70.9(b)(1), which involves

establishing a fee schedule that results

in the collection and retention of

revenues sufficient to cover the actual

costs of the operating permit program.

The County now establishes its annual

fee schedule based on the actual cost of

administering the title V program during

the previous year. The County

submitted the revised fee rule to EPA on

January 16, 1997, and submitted

documentation of fee increases on April

22, 1998, February 18, 1999 and

February 24, 2000. The County also

submitted a fee program update on

September 29, 1999 demonstrating that

its title V program is adequately funded

by operating permit fees.

The other substantive changes in

Forsyth County’s title V program

involve the following:

(1) Revising the definition of

‘‘Affected States’’ in Rule 3Q.0503 to

mean all States or local air pollution

control agencies whose areas of

jurisdiction are contiguous to Forsyth

County, rather than contiguous to the

entire state. The local-effective rule

revision was submitted to EPA on

October 2, 1998.

(2) Deleting the part 70 permit

application processing schedule in Rule

3Q.0507(f) and replacing it with a new

application processing schedule in Rule

3Q.0525. The new schedule established

time frames for the County to complete

various aspects of permit issuance,

including acknowledging receipt of the

application, the completeness check, the

technical review, mailing the public

notice, and holding a public hearing if

one is requested. Rule 3Q.0525 was

initially submitted to EPA on September

25, 1995 and then amended in

September 1998 to ensure that final

action on permit applications would be

taken within 18 months of being

deemed complete, as stipulated in 40

CFR 70.7(a)(2). The amended rule was

submitted to EPA on October 2, 1998.

What is involved in this final action?

The Forsyth County Environmental

Affairs Department has fulfilled the

conditions of the interim approval

granted on November 15, 1995, and EPA

is taking final action by this notice to

fully approve the County’s operating

permit program. EPA is also taking

action to approve other program

changes made by the County since the

interim approval was granted.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to grant final full approval

should adverse comments be filed. This

action will be effective August 21, 2000

unless the Agency receives adverse

comments by July 24, 2000.

If EPA receives such comments, then

EPA will withdraw the final rule and

inform the public that the rule will not

take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Parties

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on August 21, 2000

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866, entitled

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’

B. Executive Order 12988

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has

taken the necessary steps to eliminate

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the Executive

Order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined in Executive Order

12866, and it does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38747

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

E. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a Federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because part 70 approvals under

section 502 of the Act do not create any

new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because this

approval does not create any new

requirements, I certify that this action

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 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 the approval

action promulgated 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

H. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 21, 2000.

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).)

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

In reviewing operating permit

programs, EPA’s role is to approve state

choices, provided that they meet the

criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this

context, in the absence of a prior

existing requirement for the State to use

VCS, EPA has no authority to

disapprove an operating permit program

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews an operating

permit program, to use VCS in place of

an operating permit program that

38748 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

otherwise satisfies the provisions of the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

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: June 8, 2000.

Phyllis P. Harris,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

Appendix A of part 70 of title 40,

chapter I, 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 revising the entry for North Carolina

to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

North Carolina

(a)(1) Department of Environment and

Natural Resources: submitted on November

12, 1993, and supplemented on December 17,

1993, May 31, 1994, and August 3, 1994,

March 23, 1995, and August 9, 1995; interim

approval effective on December 15, 1995;

interim approval expires June 1, 2000.

(2) [Reserved]

(b)(1) Forsyth County Environmental

Affairs Department: submitted on November

12, 1993, and supplemented on May 31, 1994

and November 28, 1994; interim approval

effective on December 15, 1995; interim

approval expires June 1, 2000.

(2) Forsyth County submitted program

revisions on September 25, 1995, January 16,

1997, August 1, 1997, April 22, 1998, October

2, 1998, February 18, 1999, September 29,

1999, October 26, 1999, and February 24,

2000. The rule revisions contained in the

September 25, 1995, August 1, 1997, and

October 26, 1999 submittals adequately

addressed the conditions of the interim

approval which would expire on June 1,

2000. The County is hereby granted final full

approval effective on August 21, 2000.

(3) [Reserved]

(c)(1) Mecklenburg County Department of

Environmental Protection: submitted on

November 12, 1993, and supplemented on

June 5, 1995; interim approval effective on

December 15, 1995; interim approval expires

June 1, 2000.

(2) [Reserved]

(d)(1) Western North Carolina Regional Air

Pollution Control Agency: submitted on

November 12, 1993, and supplemented on

January 12, 1994, September 16, 1994,

October 11, 1994, and May 17, 1995; interim

approval effective on December 15, 1995;

interim approval expires June 1, 2000.

(2) [Reserved]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–15290 Filed 6–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301003; FRL–6557–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Azinphos-Methyl, Revocation and

Lowering of Certain Tolerances;

Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the

tolerances for azinphos-methyl by

revoking specific tolerances and

modifying specific other tolerances

listed in the regulatory text for the

insecticide azinphos-methyl (40 CFR

180.154). In the Federal Register on

December 22, 1999 (FRL–6399–6), EPA

issued a document which proposed to

revoke and modify the tolerances

addressed in this document. The

regulatory actions in this document are

part of the Agency’s reregistration

program under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA), and the tolerance reassessment

requirements of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). By law,

EPA is required to reassess 66% of the

tolerances in existence on August 2,

1996, by August 2002, or about 6,400

tolerances. This document counts 22

tolerance reassessments made toward

the August 2002 review deadline of

FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

of 1996.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective

September 20, 2000. Objections and

requests for hearings, identified by

docket control number OPP–301003,

must be received by EPA on or before

August 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit IV of the

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’

section of this document. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301003 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry O’Keefe, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508C), Office

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg.,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 308–8035; fax number:

(703) 308–8041; e-mail address:

okeefe.barry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you are an agricultural

producer, food manufacturer or

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially

affected categories and entities may

include, but are not limited to:

Categories NAICS Examples of potentially affected entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in this table could

also be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes are provided to assist

you and others in determining whether

or not this action might apply to certain

entities. If you have questions regarding

the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed under ‘‘FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.’’

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations’’ and then look

up the entry for this document under