30818 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[DE001–1000; FRL–6988–3]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Chemical

Accident Prevention Provisions and

Risk Management Plans; Delaware;

Approval of Accidental Release

Prevention Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve the Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control’s (DNREC’s)

request to implement and enforce its

accidental release prevention program

in place of similar Federal requirements.

EPA is taking this action under the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be

effective August 7, 2001 unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

July 9, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal

Register and inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be sent concurrently to:

Makeba A. Morris, Chief, Permits and

Technical Assessment Branch, Mail

Code 3AP11, Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029 and

Robert A. Barrish, Delaware Department

of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control, Division of Air and Waste

Management, 715 Grantham Lane, New

Castle, DE 19720. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the Air

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103; the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460;

and Delaware Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control,

Division of Air and Waste Management,

715 Grantham Lane, New Castle, DE

19720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dianne J. Walker, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch

Street (3AP11), Philadelphia, PA 19103–

2029, walker.dianne@epa.gov

(telephone 215–814–3297)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) provides for the prevention and

mitigation of accidental chemical

releases. CAA section 112(r)(3)–(5)

mandates that EPA promulgate a list of

‘‘regulated substances’’, with threshold

quantities. Processes at stationary

sources that contain a threshold

quantity of a regulated substance are

subject to accidental release prevention

regulations promulgated under CAA

section 112(r)(7). Pursuant to CAA

section 112(r)(3) and (5), EPA published

a list of substances and threshold

quantities on January 31, 1994 (59 FR

4478) and subsequently amended this

list on June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31730),

August 25, 1997 (62 FR 45129), January

6, 1998 (63 FR 639), May 28, 1999 (64

FR 29167) and March 13, 2000 (65 FR

13243). Pursuant to CAA section

112(r)(7), EPA published the risk

management program regulations on

June 20, 1996 (61 FR 31668), and

subsequently amended the regulations

on January 6, 1999 (64 FR 963) and May

26, 1999 (64 FR 28695). The risk

management program regulations are set

forth at 40 CFR part 68. The regulations

require, among other things, that owners

and operators of stationary sources with

more than a threshold quantity of a

regulated substance in a process submit

a risk management plan (RMP) by June

21, 1999, to a central location specified

by EPA. A RMP must include, in

general, an offsite consequence analysis

(OCA), a prevention program, and an

emergency response program.

It should be noted that the Chemical

Safety Information, Site Security and

Fuels Regulatory Relief Act, Public Law

No. 106–40, which was enacted on

August 5, 1999, excludes from coverage

by the Federal Chemical Accident

Prevention provisions any regulated

flammable substance when used as fuel

or held for sale as fuel by a retail

facility. In its May 28, 1999 (64 FR

29167) rule amendments, EPA provided

a stay of effectiveness from the risk

management program regulation for

these facilities until December 21, 1999.

EPA amended its regulations on March

13, 2000 (65 FR 13243) to conform with

this legislation. Public Law 106–40 also

limits, until at least August 5, 2000,

public access to the OCA portions of

risk management plans submitted by

covered facilities. A final rule

concerning distribution of OCA

information was published on August 4,

2000 (65 FR 48107) and codified in 40

CFR chapter IV.

In its January 6, 1999 (64 FR 963)

amendments to the rule, EPA added

mandatory and voluntary RMP data

elements, specified the use of the North

American Industry Classification

System (NAICS), listed the applicable

processes by NAICS code, required the

five year accident history to include the

weight percent of a toxic substance

involved in a release and the NAICS

code for the process involved a release,

required an owner or operator to certify

compliance with the regulation,

established specific procedures for

confidential business information and

made technical clarifications to the

regulation. In addition, EPA amended

the procedure to calculate worst-case

release scenarios for flammable

substances in its regulations on May 26,

1999 (64 FR 28695) so that worst-case

release scenarios for liquified or

refrigerated flammable substances can

be calculated in the same manner as

liquified or refrigerated toxic

substances.

The RMPs will be available to state

and local governments and to the

public. These regulations encourage

sources to reduce the probability of

accidentally releasing substances that

have the potential to cause harm to

public health and the environment.

Further, the regulations stimulate dialog

between industry and the public on

ways to improve accident prevention

and emergency response practices.

Section 112(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR

sections 63.91, 63.93 and 63.95,

authorize EPA, in part, to approve of

State rules and programs to be

implemented and enforced in place of

the certain CAA requirements,

including the chemical accident

prevention provisions set forth at 40

CFR part 68. EPA promulgated the

program approval regulations on

November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262) and

subsequently amended these regulations

on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55810).

An approvable State program must

contain, among other criteria, the

following elements: a demonstration of

the state’s authority and resources to

implement and enforce regulations that

are at least as stringent as the CAA

section 112(r) regulations including an

auditing strategy at least as stringent as

the EPA regulation; a requirement that

subject sources submit an RMP;

procedures for reviewing RMPs; and

procedures to provide technical

assistance to subject sources, including

small businesses.

II. DNREC’s Accidental Release

Prevention Program

On June 7, 1999, DNREC requested

EPA’s approval of its Accidental Release

Prevention Program to be implemented

and enforced in place of the chemical

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30819

accident prevention provisions set forth

at 40 CFR part 68. On August 9, 1999,

DNREC provided supplemental

information for its request.

The Delaware Extremely Hazardous

Substances Risk Management Act

(Chapter 77, Title 7 of the Delaware

Code), as amended, became effective

July 1, 1999. This amended law

provides authority to DNREC to develop

regulations and implement and enforce

a risk management program. On January

11, 1999, DNREC’s Accidental Release

Prevention Regulation, as amended,

became effective. This regulation adopts

the Federal requirements found in 40

CFR part 68, last revised January 6,

1998, with some adjustments and

substitutions. Specifically, DNREC has:

1. Modified the scope of the

regulation, as described in 40 CFR

section 68.1;

2. Removed the definition of

‘‘designated agency’’, added a definition

for ‘‘Department’’, and replaced all

references in the Federal regulation to

‘‘implementing agency’’ with

‘‘Department’’;

3. Removed irrelevant provisions in

the Federal regulation, including 40

CFR sections 68.2, 68.215(c), and

68.120;

4. Modified 40 CFR section 68.215(d)

by replacing the terms ‘‘implementing

agency’’ and ‘‘air permitting authority’’

with ‘‘the Department’’; and

5. Replaced 40 CFR section 68.220

with a more stringent auditing program

that requires that all risk management

plans be reviewed by DNREC within 6

months of receipt.

In addition, DNREC’s regulation

specifies a risk management program

inspection protocol and a procedure for

resolving findings of noncompliance.

DNREC’s regulation includes additional

requirements for sources not regulated

by the Federal program. These

provisions are located in section 6 of

DNREC’s Accidental Release Prevention

Regulation. DNREC is not seeking

Federal approval of the requirements in

section 6 of its Accidental Release

Prevention Regulation.

DNREC’s regulation was adopted

prior to the changes that EPA made to

its regulation on January 6, 1999, May

26, 1999, May 28, 1999 and March 13,

2000 (see description in Background

section, above). Most of these changes

are not included in the Delaware

regulation. These changes, described in

Section III. of this rulemaking, do not

impact the stringency of DNREC’s

regulation and, thus, do not alter EPA’s

decision to approve of DNREC’s rules.

III. EPA’s Analysis of DNREC’s

Accidental Release Prevention Program

The following paragraphs describe, in

detail, the differences between the

Federal regulation and DNREC’s

regulation. The scope of the Federal

program, outlined in 40 CFR section 68.

1, has been incorporated into section 1

‘‘Statement of Authority’’, section 2

‘‘Purpose’’ and section 3 ‘‘Policy and

General Duty’’ of DNREC’s Accidental

Release Prevention Regulation. These

sections of DNREC’s regulation:

1. Cite DNREC’s legislative and

regulatory authority to implement the

regulation and seek delegation of the

Federal program;

2. Describe the intent of the regulation

with the overall goal of preventing

catastrophic releases of regulated

substances and protecting the public;

and

3. Outline the general duty of owners

and operators of stationary sources to

identify hazards, to design, operate and

maintain safe facilities and to minimize

the consequences of accidental releases.

These provisions are no less stringent

than the corresponding Federal

requirements.

DNREC has removed the definition of

the term ‘‘designated agency’’ used in

the Federal regulation, added the

definition of ‘‘Department’’, and defined

the term ‘‘implementing agency’’ used

in the Federal regulation as

‘‘Department’’. The term ‘‘designated

agency’’ in the Federal regulation refers

to the state, local or Federal agency

which is delegated authority by the state

air permitting agency to verify that

sources permitted under 40 CFR part 70

or 71 and subject to the Federal or state

accidental release prevention

requirements have submitted an RMP

and have certified compliance with the

requirements. In addition, the

designated agency is tasked with

ensuring that these sources are in

compliance with the Federal or state

accidental release prevention

requirements. Because Delaware’s air

permitting authority, DNREC, is not

delegating this authority to any other

state, local or Federal agency, the

‘‘designated agency’’ term was removed

from its regulation. DNREC will be

responsible for implementing the

aforementioned tasks which are

described in detail in section 5.215(c) of

DNREC’s regulation. The term

‘‘Department’’ in DNREC’s regulation

has been defined as ‘‘the Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental

Control’’. The definition of

‘‘implementing agency’’ used in the

Federal regulation has been replaced in

DNREC’s regulation with ‘‘Department’’

since, on the effective date of this

rulemaking, DNREC will be the state

agency delegated the authority to

implement an accidental release

prevention program.

In addition, DNREC has defined

several terms which are not used in the

Federal regulation. These terms are only

used in section 6 of DNREC’s regulation.

DNREC is not seeking Federal approval

of section 6 of its regulation. DNREC has

removed irrelevant sections of the

Federal regulation from its regulation.

Specifically, the ‘‘stayed provisions’’ of

40 CFR section 68.2 were removed from

the DNREC regulation because the time

limit of this stay has expired. DNREC

has removed the permitting provisions

of 40 CFR section 68.215(c), requiring

the state permitting authority to reopen

or reissue permits that do not contain

the applicable accidental release

prevention requirements, because all

permits issued pursuant to Delaware’s

permitting program (approved under 40

CFR part 70) contain language

incorporating the accidental release

prevention requirements. Regardless, in

accordance with the program approval

requirements of 40 CFR section 63.95(b),

DNREC is not required to have

permitting provisions comparable to the

provisions of 40 CFR section 68.215(c).

DNREC removed the auditing

requirements of 40 CFR section 68.220

and replaced these requirements with

sections 7 and 8 of its regulation.

Specifically, section 8(a) of DNREC’s

regulation requires DNREC to audit all

RMPs within six months of the date that

they are received by DNREC or posted

by EPA on its website. This provision is

clearly more stringent than the Federal

regulation, 40 CFR sections 68.220(a),

(b) and (c), which requires the

implementing agency to ‘‘periodically

audit RMPS’’ according to specific

criteria.

The Federal regulation specifically

exempts stationary sources with a Star

or Merit ranking under the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration’s

(OSHA’s) voluntary protection program

from auditing where DNREC’s

regulation does not. Sections 8(b), (c),

and (d) of DNREC’s regulation grant

DNREC access to the regulated

stationary sources for auditing and

outline the procedures for DNREC to

notify the stationary source of its

deficiencies in the program as a result

of an audit and for the stationary source

to respond to such deficiencies. Section

8(e) and (f) of DNREC’s regulation

outline the process that DNREC will use

to issue a final determination of the

audit and sets forth the provisions for

identifying violations at a stationary

source as a result of an audit. Sections

30820 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

8(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of DNREC’s

regulation are equivalent to 40 CFR

sections 68.220(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h).

Section 8(g) of DNREC’s regulation

grants the public access to the

preliminary determinations, responses

and final determinations made as a

result of an audit, however, in

accordance with section 14(a) of

DNREC’s regulation, confidential

business information and the

identification of persons interviewed

during an inspection can be withheld

from the public. This provision is

equivalent to 40 CFR section 68.220(i)

and 40 CFR section 68.210(a), which

requires that preliminary

determinations, responses and final

determinations made as a result of an

audit and RMP information be available

to the public consistent with 42 U.S.C.

7414(c). In addition to these provisions,

under 40 CFR section 68.151, owners

and operators of stationary sources

required to submit an RMP can assert a

claim of confidential business

information under 40 CFR section 2.301.

Section 8(h) of DNREC’s regulation,

outlining DNREC’s right to exercise its

enforcement investigation and

information gathering authorities, is

equivalent to 40 CFR section 68.220.

EPA has, therefore, determinated that

in accordance with the program

approval requirements of 40 CFR

section 63.95(b)(4), DNREC’s auditing

strategy is no less stringent than the

corresponding Federal requirement.

Section 7 of DNREC’s regulation

provides a detailed description of

DNREC’s inspection procedures. There

is no similar provision in the Federal

regulation, however, this information

provides the description necessary to

fulfill DNREC’s requirement to

demonstrate its authority to implement

and enforce the regulation, as required

by 40 CFR section 63.95(b)(1)(i) and (4).

DNREC removed the provisions to

petition EPA to modify the list of

regulated substances identified in 40

CFR section 68.130, as described in 40

CFR section 68.120, from its regulations

since DNREC does not have the

authority to adopt future regulatory

amendments or revisions. DNREC

retained the provisions outlined in 40

CFR sections 68.150 through 68.190 in

sections 5.150 through 5.190 of its

regulation. However, DNREC added the

following language to section 5.150:

‘‘Note: The data elements of the Plan are

required to be submitted to EPA. The

data elements of the plan are based

upon 40 CFR 68.150 through 68.190

dated July 1, 1997 reprinted here under

Sections 5.150 through 5.190. It is the

responsibility of the owner or operator

to meet the existing EPA risk

management plan data submittal

requirements at the time of

submission.’’ These provisions are

required by 40 CFR section

63.95(b)(1)(ii).

DNREC removed Tables 2 and 4 found

in 40 CFR part 68 from its regulation.

These tables present information

identical to that presented in Tables 1

and 3 of 40 CFR part 68. DNREC has

retained Tables 1 and 3 and has

renamed them Tables 1 and 2,

respectively. Appendix A of 40 CFR part

68 is Table 3 of DNREC’s regulation.

As stated earlier, DNREC’s regulation

does not include all of the modifications

that EPA made to its regulation on

January 6, 1999, May 26, 1999, May 28,

1999 and March 13, 2000. DNREC made

changes to its regulation in an attempt

to conform with the January 6, 1999

amendments, based upon EPA’s

proposed amendments of April 17, 1998

(63 FR 19216). DNREC’s changes

included the addition of the definition

of NAICS in section 5.3 and the

requirements in sections 5.10(b)(1) and

5.79(a). These provisions are identical to

the amendments made in EPA’s

regulation 40 CFR sections 68.3,

68.10(b)(1) and 68.79(a), respectively.

Section 5.42(b) of DNREC’s regulation

does not conform with EPA’s

amendments in 40 CFR sections

68.42(b)(3) and (4) which added

requirements to the five year accident

history. Sections 5.160(b), 5.165(b),

5.170(b), 5.175(b) and 5.180(b) of

DNREC’s regulation do not conform

with the provisions in 40 CFR sections

68.160(b)(1), (7), (12), (14)–(18),

68.165(b)(2), 68.170(b), 68.175(b) and

68.180(b) of EPA’s amended regulation

which require the RMP to contain the

method for obtaining and describing the

location of longitude and latitude of the

facility, the Title V permit number,

certain optional data elements, and the

weight percentage of toxic substance in

a liquid mixture used in the offsite

consequence analysis. In addition,

DNREC did not include the provisions

corresponding to 40 CFR sections

68.150(e), 68.151, and 68.152 related to

the procedures for claiming confidential

business information.

However, regardless of the differences

between DNREC’s regulation and the

January 6, 1999 amendments to EPA’s

regulation, section 5.150 of DNREC’s

regulation requires affected sources to

submit RMPs which meet the existing

EPA risk management plan data

submittal requirements at the time of

submission (see the description of

section 5.150 of DNREC’s regulation

provided in Section II. of this

document). Therefore, DNREC’s

regulation, when taken as a whole with

respect to these provisions, is no less

stringent than EPA’s regulation.

The May 26, 1999 amendments

include changes to the procedures in

calculating the worst-case scenario

releases for liquified and refrigerated

flammable gases. Because these

amendments allow for a less

conservative approach for calculating

worst-case scenario releases than the

previous provisions, DNREC’s current

regulation is no less stringent than

EPA’s regulation. EPA’s May 28, 1999

amendment, which provided a stay of

effectiveness until December 21, 1999,

is no longer applicable. EPA’s March 13,

2000 amendment to its regulation

revised the list of regulated flammable

substances to exclude those substances

when used as a fuel or held for sale as

a fuel at a retail facility. DNREC’s

current regulation, which does not

incorporate these provisions, is no less

stringent than EPA’s regulation. In fact,

because DNREC will regulate sources

which use flammable substances as a

fuel or hold flammable substances for

sale as a fuel at a retail facility, DNREC’s

regulation will cover a larger universe of

sources than the Federal regulation.

DNREC’s regulation includes

additional requirements for sources not

regulated by the Federal program. These

provisions are located in section 6 of

DNREC’s Accidental Release Prevention

Regulation. DNREC is not seeking

Federal approval of the requirements in

section 6 of DNREC’s Accidental

Release Prevention Regulation. EPA has

separated these portions of DNREC’s

regulation from this approval, per the

requirements of 40 CFR section

63.91(a)(3) and (f). Consequently, in

accordance with 40 CFR section

63.91(c)(1)(iii), upon approval, section 6

of DNREC’s Accidental Release

Prevention Regulation will remain

enforceable only by the State.

DNREC’s regulation conforms to

EPA’s regulation regarding the

distribution of off-site consequence

analysis information, dated August 4,

2000 (65 FR 48107) and codified in 40

CFR chapter IV, because it requires that

disclosure of classified information be

controlled by applicable laws,

regulations or executive orders, per

section 5.120 of DNREC’s regulation.

Based upon DNREC’s program

approval request and its pertinent laws

and regulations, EPA has determined

that such an approval is appropriate in

that DNREC has satisfied the criteria of

40 CFR sections 63.91, 63.93 and 63.95.

The DNREC program has adequate and

effective authorities, resources, and

procedures in place for implementation

and enforcement of sources subject to

the CAA section 112(r)(7) requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30821

DNREC has the primary authority and

responsibility to carry out all elements

of the CAA section 112(r)(7) program for

all sources covered in Delaware,

including on-site inspections, record

keeping reviews, audits and

enforcement.

DNREC’s program to implement

112(r) of the CAA, has the authority and

resources to educate subject sources

through outreach programs; provide

technical assistance; to review all risk

management plans; to coordinate its

efforts with other agencies and programs

including the State Emergency Response

Commission, the Local Emergency

Planning Committees, and DNREC’s air

permitting program; and to adequately

enforce its 112(r) program.

Upon approval, DNREC’s program

will be administered by its Accidental

Release Prevention Group. Although

DNREC has primary authority and

responsibility to implement and enforce

the CAA section 112(r)(7) requirements,

nothing shall preclude, limit, or

interfere with the authority of EPA to

exercise its enforcement, investigatory,

and information gathering authorities

concerning this part of the Act.

IV. Final Action

EPA is approving DNREC’s

Accidental Release Prevention

Regulation sections 1 through 5 and

sections 7 thorough 14, as amended,

effective January 11, 1999, as equivalent

to the CAA section 112(r)(7)

requirements set forth in Chapter 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

part 68 for affected sources in the State

of Delaware. Accordingly, EPA is

revising 40 CFR sections 63.14 and

63.99 to reflect the Federal

enforceability of DNREC’s regulation.

DNREC’s regulation adopts the federal

requirements found in 40 CFR part 68,

last revised January 6, 1998, with some

adjustments and substitutions. EPA is

publishing this rule without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comment. The

adjustments and substitutions made in

the DNREC regulation are primarily

non-substantive. The three substantive

changes from the Federal regulation

relate to auditing of the RMPs,

calculating worst-case scenarios for

flammable substances and the

applicability of the DNREC regulations

to flammable substances when used as

a fuel or held for sale at retail facilities.

These three substantive changes are

clearly more stringent than EPA’s

regulation. DNREC is required to audit

all RMPs within six months of

submittal. EPA’s regulations do not have

such a requirement. DNREC requires

facilities to estimate worst-case

scenarios for liquified or refrigerated

flammable substances in the same

manner used for gaseous flammable

substances (i.e., assuming the entire

quantity of a liquified or refrigerated

flammable substance vaporizes resulting

in a vapor cloud explosion). EPA’s

regulation allow facilities to calculate

worst-case scenarios for liquified or

refrigerated flammable substances in the

same manner used for liquified or

refrigerated toxic substances which

results in a less conservative estimate

than DNREC’s approach. Finally,

because DNREC’s regulation did not

include EPA’s exclusion of flammable

substances used as a fuel or held for sale

at retail facilities, DNREC will regulate

a larger universe of facilities. Although

EPA does not anticipate adverse

comments on these changes, in the

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s

Federal Register, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the program

approval request if adverse comments

are filed. This rule will be effective on

August 7, 2001 without further notice

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by July 9, 2001. If EPA receives adverse

comment, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. EPA will address all

public comments in a subsequent final

rule based on the proposed rule. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting must do so at

this time.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), 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. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. In reviewing

requests for rule approval under Clean

Air Act section 112, 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 voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove requests for rule approval

under Clean Air Act section 112 for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a request for rule

approval under Clean Air Act section

112, to use VCS in place of a request for

rule approval under Clean Air Act

section 112 that otherwise satisfies the

provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus,

the requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. 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.).

30822 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

B. 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. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. 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 7, 2001.

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,

pertaining to the approval of Delaware’s

accidental release prevention program

(Clean Air Act Section 112(r)), may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: May 16, 2001.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

adding paragraph (d)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporation by Reference.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3)(i) Letter of June 7, 1999 to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 3 from the Delaware Department

of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control requesting formal full

delegation to take over primary

responsibility for implementation and

enforcement of the Chemical Accident

Prevention Program under Section

112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990.

(ii) Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control,

Division of Air and Waste Management,

Accidental Release Prevention

Regulation, sections 1 through 5 and

sections 7 through 14, effective January

11, 1999, IBR approved for

§ 63.99(a)(8)(i) of subpart E of this part.

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

3. Section 63.99 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal Authorities

(a) * * *

(8) Delaware

(i) Affected sources must comply with

the Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control,

Division of Air and Waste Management,

Accidental Release Prevention

Regulation, sections 1–5 and sections 7–

14, January 11, 1999 (incorporated by

reference as specified in § 63.14). The

material incorporated in the Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control, Division of Air

and Waste Management, Accidental

Release Prevention Regulation, sections

1–5 and sections 7–14 pertains to

owners and operators of stationary

sources in the State of Delaware that

have more than a threshold quantity of

a regulated substance in a process, as

described in section 5.10 of Delaware’s

regulation, and has been approved

under the procedures in §§ 63.93 and

63.95 to be implemented and enforced

in place of 40 CFR part 68–Chemical

Accident Prevention Provisions.

(ii) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 01–14079 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301127; FRL–6780–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Methyl Anthranilate; Exemption from

the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the methyl

anthranilate on corn and sunflower

when applied/used as a bird repellent.

Bird Shield Repellent Corporation

submitted a petition to EPA under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996, requesting an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the

need to establish a maximum

permissible level for residues of methyl

anthranilate on corn and sunflower and

reasses the existing tolerance exemption

for methyl anthranilate.

DATES: This regulation is effective June

8, 2001. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number [OPP–301127], must be

received by EPA, on or before August 7,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, electronically, or in person. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit IX. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301127 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Jim Downing, c/o Product

Manager (PM) 91, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7511C),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: 703–308–

9071; and e-mail address:

downing.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be 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: