13830 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

announced by the Responsible Official

shall be implemented. If an appeal

decision results in a change in the

shares, the revised total share of the

Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside

Program shall be accomplished during

the remaining portion of the five-year

period.

(l) Timber sale set-aside policy

changes. Timber purchasers shall

receive an opportunity, in accordance

with all applicable laws and regulations,

to review and comment on significant

changes in the Small Business Timber

Sale Set-Aside program or policy prior

to adoption and implementation.

Dated: March 17, 1997.

Brian Eliot Burke,

Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources

and Environment.

[FR Doc. 97–7274 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5702–5]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program; State of

Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the State

of Connecticut 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: April 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final

interim approval are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: Office of

Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Dahl, CAP, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 1, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203–

2211, (617) 565–4298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

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 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. If EPA

has not fully approved a program by the

end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

On December 6, 1996, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits program for the State of

Connecticut. See 61 FR 64651. The EPA

received comments from the Society of

the Plastics Industry, Inc. on the

proposal. In this document, EPA is

taking final action to promulgate interim

approval of the operating permits

program for the State of Connecticut.

II. Response to Comments

The comments received on EPA’s

December 6, 1996 proposal to grant

interim approval to the Connecticut

Program and EPA’s response to those

comments are as follows:

Comment No. 1: Permit fees for the

Connecticut program should be no

higher than the amount specified by the

Clean Air Act.

Response: The amount in the Act of

$25 per ton of emissions on an annual

basis, adjusted by the consumer price

index, was never intended to be the

ceiling on the money a State could

collect to operate a title V program.

Instead, the Act is clear that a State is

required to charge sufficient fees to

cover the costs of implementing a title

V program. Connecticut has analyzed its

needs to fully implement a title V

program and has concluded that it

would need 3.6 million dollars per year.

EPA has determined that this amount

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 70.9

regarding the permit fees and disagrees

that the State may be collecting excess

fees. More importantly, EPA has no

authority to require Connecticut to limit

its fees to the $25 per ton of emissions.

Comment No. 2: Commenter

disagreed with EPA’s position to require

Connecticut to amend its rule in order

to allow EPA to object to a permit at any

time after receiving a citizen’s petition

that requests EPA to veto a permit.

Response: In interim approval

condition No. 4, EPA is requiring

Connecticut to remove the 45 day limit

the State regulations attempt to impose

on EPA’s ability to object to a permit

following receipt of a citizen petition.

Section 505(b)(2) of the Act imposes a

60 day deadline on EPA to act on a

citizen petition, but it does not disable

EPA from objecting to a permit or

moving to reopen the permit if EPA

should miss the 60 day deadline when

responding to a meritorious citizen

petition. Section 505(e) of the Act and

40 CFR 70.7(g) make it clear that EPA

can initiate the process to modify or

revoke and reissue a permit at any time

if the permit is inconsistent with the

applicable requirements of the Act.

Therefore, Connecticut has no authority

to impose a 45 day limit on EPA’s

opportunity to respond to a citizen

petition.

Comment No. 3: Connecticut should

be allowed to extend the permit shield

to Administrative Amendments,

especially because administrative

amendments have no environmental

impact.

Response: Part 70 limits a permit

shield to only those permit

modifications that receive full EPA,

affected states, and public review.

Connecticut’s administrative

amendments do not receive any EPA,

affected state, or public review.

Therefore, EPA disagrees with the

commenter and still requires

Connecticut to remove the permit shield

from administrative amendments.

While it is true that properly executed

administrative amendments should

have no environmental impact, this is

not a justification for extending the

permit shield to such changes. Indeed,

the shield is probably irrelevant to the

vast majority of administrative

amendments because, by definition,

they will not effect how the facility

demonstrates compliance with the Act

(except perhaps to enhance the

compliance demonstration through

more frequent reporting). Moreover, if a

permit change that does effect

compliance terms in the permit is

mistakenly made using an

administrative amendment,

Connecticut’s rule should not create the

risk that this change will shield a

facility from direct enforcement of the

Act.

Comment No. 4: Title V should only

apply to major sources and Connecticut

should remove its requirement that nonmajor sources obtain a title V permit

within five years of the implementation

date.

Response: At this time, EPA has

deferred its decision on whether nonmajor sources will have to obtain title V

permits. 40 CFR 70.3(b) allows
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13831

Connecticut the discretion of either

following EPA’s deferral or requiring

that non-major sources obtain a title V

permit. So if Connecticut does choose to

require non-major sources to obtain a

title V permit, EPA would have no basis

for objecting to a state program that is

more comprehensive than required by

federal law.

The commenter appears to have

misunderstood EPA’s interim approval

condition on this point. The issue with

Connecticut’s rule is not that the State

requires minor sources to obtain a title

V permit, rather it is the failure of

Connecticut’s rule to require that nonmajor sources come into the program

when EPA determines that non-majors

must get title V permits. The State

defers minor sources for five years from

the effective date of Connecticut’s rule

unless the Commissioner notifies a

source of an earlier date. The State’s

rule is not consistent with 40 CFR

70.3(b) because it does not require the

State to issue title V permits to nonmajor sources if the Administrator

decides to include non-major sources in

the title V program; instead the rule

leaves it to the discretion of the

Commissioner to bring non-majors into

the program prior to expiration of the

five year deferral. Connecticut must

amend its rule to be consistent with part

70.

Comment No. 5: Connecticut should

streamline its permit modification

procedures.

Response: EPA agrees with the

commenter that Connecticut’s program

needs a streamlined permit modification

process and has stated as much in 61 FR

64651, Proposed Action, section II.B.25.

The commenter suggests Connecticut

should use the process outlined in

EPA’s August 31, 1995 proposed

changes to part 70. Connecticut should

base any new permit modification

procedures on final EPA regulations, not

a proposal.

III. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating interim

approval of the operating permits

program submitted by the State of

Connecticut on September 28, 1995. The

State must make the changes specified

in the proposed rulemaking, under II.B.,

Proposed Action, in order to be granted

full approval. See 61 FR 64651–64658

(December 6, 1996) for a complete

discussion of those conditions. In brief,

the State must: (1) Require sources to

explain exemptions from applicable

rules. (2) Require applicants to state

they will comply with future

requirements that become effective

during the permit term. (3) Require that

compliance schedules must be as least

as stringent as any judicial consent

decree or administrative order. (4)

Remove time limitation on the

Administrator responding to a citizen

petition. (5) Insert a permit condition

requiring that permit fees be paid on an

annual basis. (6) Require a source to

submit additional or corrected

information whenever that source

becomes aware that the original

application was either incorrect or

incomplete. (7) Make available a

statement of legal and factual basis for

each permit and insert in the permit the

origin and authority for permit terms.

(8) Clarify reporting requirements for

permit deviations and affirmative

defense. (9) Change the definition of

‘‘technology-based emission

limitations’’ to be consistent with part

70. (10) Adequately address ‘‘Section

502(b)(10) changes.’’ (11) Clarify that

EPA does not derive its hearing

authority from State law. (12) Complete

all elements of the definition for

‘‘applicable requirements.’’ (13) Clarify

that all emission units have to be

addressed in a title V permit. (14)

Remove the permit shield from

administrative amendments. (15) Allow

EPA 45 days to review a tentative

determination no matter when the State

makes changes to a tentative

determination. (16) Delete the ‘‘cut-off’’

date in the definition for ‘‘Code of

Federal Regulations.’’ (17) Include all

elements in the definition for ‘‘regulated

air pollutants.’’ (18) Adopt regulations

that implement section 112(g) of the

Act. (19) Allow a permit to continue in

effect if a complete renewal application

had been filed. (20) Require non-major

sources to obtain a title V permit if

required by the Administrator. (21)

Require that an applicant cannot omit

any information needed to determine

the applicability of, or to impose, any

applicable requirement. (22) Clarify that

EPA derives its reopening authority

from the Act, not from State regulations.

(23) State that a source that fails to

comply with a general permit is

operating without a title V permit. (24)

Require minor new source review

actions to be processed in a manner at

least equivalent to 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2).

(25) Provide adequate, streamlined, and

reasonable procedures for expeditiously

processing permit modifications. (26)

Align the time frames between the due

date for renewal applications and when

the State can process those applications

to ensure that the applications are acted

upon prior to the permit expiring. (27)

Clarify who is the responsible party

when a source’s ownership is

transferred. (28) Require all permits to

address periodic monitoring. (29) Revise

the definition of responsible official to

be consistent with part 70.

The scope of the State of

Connecticut’s part 70 program approved

in this document applies to all part 70

sources (as defined in the approved

program) within the State of

Connecticut, except any sources of air

pollution over which an Indian Tribe

has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813,

55815–18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term

‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined under the Act

as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or

other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village,

which is Federally recognized as

eligible for the special programs and

services provided by the United States

to Indians because of their status as

Indians.’’ See section 302(r) of the CAA;

see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25,

1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).

This interim approval extends until

April 26, 1999. During this interim

approval period, the State of

Connecticut is protected from sanctions,

and EPA is not obligated to promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

operating permits program in the State

of Connecticut. Permits issued under a

program with interim approval have full

standing with respect to part 70, and the

1-year time period for submittal of

permit applications by subject sources

begins upon the effective date of this

interim approval, as does the 3-year

time period for processing the initial

permit applications.

If the State of Connecticut fails to

submit a complete corrective program

for full approval by October 26, 1998

EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the State of

Connecticut then fails to submit a

corrective program that EPA finds

complete before the expiration of that

18-month period, EPA will be required

to apply one of the sanctions in section

179(b) of the Act, which will remain in

effect until EPA determines that the

State of Connecticut has corrected the

deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. If, six months after

application of the first sanction, the

State of Connecticut still has not

submitted a corrective program that EPA

has found complete, a second sanction

will be required.

If EPA disapproves the State of

Connecticut’s complete corrective

program, EPA will be required to apply

one of the section 179(b) sanctions on

the date 18 months after the effective

date of the disapproval, unless prior to

that date the State of Connecticut has

submitted a revised program and EPA

has determined that it corrected the

deficiencies that prompted the

disapproval. If, six months after EPA
13832 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

applies the first sanction, the State of

Connecticut has not submitted a revised

program that EPA has determined

corrects the deficiencies, a second

sanction is required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the expiration of an interim

approval period if the State of

Connecticut has not timely submitted a

complete corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective

program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to the State of

Connecticut program by the expiration

of this interim approval, since the

expiration would occur after November

15, 1995, EPA would be required to

promulgate, administer and enforce a

Federal permits program for the State of

Connecticut upon interim approval

expiration.

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. However, at this time

Connecticut does not have the authority

to include most of the section 112

standards in title V permits or in stateonly permits, including sections 112 (g)

and (j). The lack of authority is due to

the effect the definition of ‘‘code of

federal regulations’’ has on the

definition of ‘‘applicable requirements.’’

Given the State’s current rule,

Connecticut is unable to write any

permit conditions that incorporate

section 112 standards promulgated after

September 16, 1994. See 61 FR 64651,

Proposed Action, section II.B.16

(December 6, 1996), for further detail.

Therefore, EPA is not promulgating

approval of the State’s program under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 for

receiving delegation of section 112

standards at this time.

In addition, Connecticut’s current

new source review (NSR) program is

unable to fully address section 112(g)

requirements. One of the main reasons

for the State’s lack of authority is due to

the requirement that a NSR permit is

only needed for new or modified

sources that have a net emission

increase of a single pollutant greater

than 15 tons per year. Section 112(g) can

be triggered for new sources that emit 10

tons per year of a single hazardous air

pollutant or 25 tons per year of total

hazardous air pollutants.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final interim approval, including

comments received by the State of

Connecticut and reviewed by EPA on

the proposal, are contained in the

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 this final

interim approval. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. 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 May 23, 1997.

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).)

C. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

generally requires an Agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analyses 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.

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. I certify

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

E. 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. Additionally, it will not cost

$100 million to operate or comply with

this program.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

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: February 20, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 70, 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 Connecticut in

alphabetical order to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 56 / Monday, March 24, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13833

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Connecticut

(a) Department of Environmental

Protection: submitted on September 28, 1995;

interim approval effective on April 23, 1997;

interim approval expires April 26, 1999.

(b) [Reserved]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–7349 Filed 3–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 136

Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures for the Analysis of

Pollutants

CFR Correction

In title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 136 to 149, revised as

of July 1, 1996, on page 26 § 136.3 (e),

table II, under metals, the third entry

should read as follows:

TABLE II—REQUIRED CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDING TIMES

Parameter No./name Container 1 Preservation 2,3 Maximum holding

time 4

* * * * * * *

Metals:7

* * * * * * *

3, 5–8, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30, 32–34, 36, 37, 45, 47, 51, 52, 58–60, 62,

63, 70–72, 74, 75. Metals, except boron, chromium VI and mercury.

P, G ....... ......do .......................... 6 months.

* * * * * * *

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

40 CFR Part 180, 185 and 186

[OPP–300465; FRL–5597–7]

RIN No. 2070–AB78

Avermectin B1 and Its Delta-8,9-

Isomer; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

time-limited tolerances for residues of

the insecticide avermectin and its delta8,9-isomers in or on the following raw

agricultural commodities: cottonseed,

citrus, dried hops, potatoes, meat and

meat byproducts, milk and processed

food/feed commodities. Merck Co., Inc.

submitted a petition to EPA under the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as

amended by the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 requesting the tolerances.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective March 24, 1997. The entries in

the table expire on September 1, 1999.

Objections and requests for hearings

must be received by May 23, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300465/PP

7F3500; 8F3592; 5F4508; 4E4419 and

FAP 8H5660], may be submitted to:

Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M

St. SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the docket control number

and submitted to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

copy of objections and hearing requests

to Rm 1132, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson-Davis

Hwy, Arlington, VA. Fees

accompanying objections shall be

labeled ‘‘Tolerance Petition Fees’’ and

forwarded to: EPA Headquarters

Accounting Operations Branch,

OPP(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. An

electronic copy of objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk may be submitted to OPP by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests must be submitted as

an ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300465/PP

7F3500; 8F3592; 5F4508; 4E4419 and

FAP 8H5660]]. No Confidential

Business Information (CBI) should be

submitted through e-mail. Copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests on this rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submission can be found below in this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: George LaRocca, Product Manager

(PM) 13, Registration Division (7505C),

Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number and

e-mail address: Rm. 204, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson-Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA

22202, (703) 305–6100; e-mail:

larocca.george@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register dated May 8, 1996 (61

FR 20745), EPA proposed to renew

time-limited tolerances for the

insecticide avermectin and its delta-8,9-

isomer (avermectin) in or on cottonseed

at 0.005 parts per million (ppm); citrus,

whole fruit, at 0.02 ppm; citrus oil, at

0.1 ppm; citrus dried pulp, at 0.1 ppm;

cattle, meat, at 0.02 ppm; cattle, meat

byproducts, at 0.02 ppm; cattle, fat, at

0.015 ppm; milk, at 0.005 ppm; and

hops, dried, at 0.5 ppm. These

tolerances were originally established in

response to pesticide petitions 7F3500,

8F3592, 4E4419, and food additive

petition 8H5550 and have since expired.

They were time-limited due to aquatic

pesticide exposure issues. The Agency

was unable to publish a final rule prior

to the enactment of Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996. Because of new

procedures under FQPA, Merck was

required to submit a new notice of filing

requesting reissuance of these tolerances

in compliance with FQPA.

In the Federal Register dated

December 10, 1996 (61 FR 65043), EPA

issued a notice of filing which

announced that Merck had filed a

request to amend 40 CFR 180.449 by