63434 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 270.66 Permits for boilers and industrial

furnaces burning hazardous waste.

* * * * *

(g) Interim status boilers and

industrial furnaces. For the purpose of

determining feasibility of compliance

with the performance standards of

§ 266.104 through 266.107 of this

chapter and of determining adequate

operating conditions under § 266.103 of

this chapter, applicants owning or

operating existing boilers or industrial

furnaces operated under the interim

status standards of § 266.103 of this

chapter must either prepare and submit

a trial burn plan and perform a trial

burn in accordance with the

requirements of this section or submit

other information as specified in

§ 270.22(a)(6). The Director must

announce his or her intention to

approve of the trial burn plan in

accordance with the timing and

distribution requirements of paragraph

(d)(3) of this section. The contents of the

notice must include: the name and

telephone number of a contact person at

the facility; the name and telephone

number of a contact office at the

permitting agency; the location where

the trial burn plan and any supporting

documents can be reviewed and copied;

and a schedule of the activities that are

required prior to permit issuance,

including the anticipated time schedule

for agency approval of the plan and the

time periods during which the trial burn

would be conducted. Applicants who

submit a trial burn plan and receive

approval before submission of the part

B permit application must complete the

trial burn and submit the results

specified in paragraph (f) of this section

with the part B permit application. If

completion of this process conflicts

with the date set for submission of the

part B application, the applicant must

contact the Director to establish a later

date for submission of the part B

application or the trial burn results. If

the applicant submits a trial burn plan

with part B of the permit application,

the trial burn must be conducted and

the results submitted within a time

period prior to permit issuance to be

specified by the Director.

[FR Doc. 95–29896 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[SC–029–1–7177a; FRL–5316–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Approval of

Revisions to the South Carolina State

Implementation Plan (SIP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to

the South Carolina State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to

incorporate new permitting regulations

and to allow the State of South Carolina

to issue Federally enforceable state

construction and operating permits

(FESCOP). On July 12, 1995, the State of

South Carolina through the Department

of Health and Environmental Control

(DHEC) submitted a SIP revision which

updates the procedural rules governing

the issuance of air permits in South

Carolina and fulfills the requirements

necessary for a state FESCOP program to

become Federally enforceable. In order

to extend the Federal enforceability of

South Carolina’s FESCOP program to

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), EPA is

also approving South Carolina’s

FESCOP program pursuant to section

112 of the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA) so that South Carolina may

issue Federally enforceable construction

and operating permits for HAPs.

DATES: This final rule will be effective

February 11, 1996, unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

January 10, 1996. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Scott Miller at the EPA

Regional office listed below. Copies of

the documents relative to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott Miller, Air Programs Branch, Air,

Pesticides & Toxics Management

Division, Region 4 Environmental

Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street

NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The

telephone number is (404) 347–3555

extension 4153. Reference file SC029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

12, 1995, the State of South Carolina

through the DHEC submitted a SIP

revision designed to allow South

Carolina to issue FESCOP which

conform to EPA requirements for

Federal enforceability as specified in a

Federal Register notice, ‘‘Requirements

for the preparation, adoption, and

submittal of implementation plans; air

quality, new source review; final rules.’’

(See 54 FR 22274, June 28, 1989). This

voluntary SIP revision allows EPA and

citizens under the Act to enforce terms

and conditions of state-issued minor

source construction and operating

permits. Construction and operating

permits that are issued under the State’s

minor source construction and

operating permit program that is

approved into the State SIP and under

section 112(l) will provide Federally

enforceable limits to an air pollution

source’s potential to emit. Limiting of a

source’s potential to emit through

Federally enforceable construction and

operating permits can affect a source’s

applicability to Federal regulations such

as title V operating permits, New Source

Review (NSR) preconstruction permits,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) preconstruction permits for

criteria pollutants and Federal air toxics

requirements. EPA notes that the State

will continue to issue construction and

operating permits that are not intended

to be Federally enforceable under

regulations found at South Carolina Air

Pollution Control Regulation (SCAPCR)

61–62.1 Section II.A and Section II.B.

In the aforementioned June 28, 1989,

Federal Register document, EPA listed

five criteria necessary to make a state

agency’s minor source construction and

operating permit program Federally

enforceable and, therefore, approvable

into the SIP. This revision satisfies the

five criteria for Federal enforceability of

the State’s minor source construction

and operating permit program.

The first criterion for a State’s

construction and operating permit

program to become Federally

enforceable is EPA’s approval of the

permit program into the SIP. On July 12,

1995, the State of South Carolina

submitted through the DHEC a SIP

revision designed to meet the five

criteria for Federal enforceability. This

action will approve these regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63435

into the South Carolina SIP, and

therefore satisfy the first criterion for

Federal enforceability.

The second criterion for a state’s

construction and operating permit

program to be Federally enforceable is

that the regulations approved into the

SIP must impose a legal obligation that

operating permit holders adhere to the

terms and limitations of such permits.

SCAPCR 61–62.1 Section II imposes a

legal obligation that construction and

operating permit holders adhere to the

terms and limitations of the

construction or operating permit

intended to be Federally enforceable.

Every construction and operating permit

must include all applicable State and

Federal requirements. In addition, the

permits must include monitoring,

recordkeeping, efficiency levels for addon air pollution control devices, and

other provisions to show compliance

with the terms and conditions of the

construction/operating permit. Hence,

the second criterion for Federal

enforceability is met.

The third criterion for a state’s

construction and operating permit

program to be Federally enforceable is

that the state construction and operating

permit program must require that all

emissions limitations, controls, and

other requirements imposed by the

permit be at least as stringent as any

other applicable limitations and

requirements contained in the SIP or

enforceable under the SIP, and the

program may not issue permits that

waive, or make less stringent, any

limitations or requirements contained in

or issued pursuant to the SIP, or that are

otherwise ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ (e.g.

standards established under sections

111 and 112 of the Act). SCAPCR 61–

62.1 Section II G(8)(b)(vii) mandates that

every construction and operating permit

that a facility intends to be Federally

enforceable must include all applicable

State and Federal requirements. SIP

requirements are applicable Federal

requirements and therefore, will not be

waived or made less stringent since they

must be included in any permit

intended to be Federally enforceable.

Therefore, the third criterion for Federal

enforceability is met.

The fourth criterion for a state’s

construction and operating permit

program to be Federally enforceable is

that limitations, controls, and

requirements in the operating permits

be permanent, quantifiable, and

otherwise enforceable as a practical

matter. SCAPCR 61–62.1 Section II

G(4)(f) includes a verbatim

incorporation of this requirement. Also,

with respect to this criterion,

enforceability is essentially provided on

a permit-by-permit basis, particularly by

writing practical and quantitative

enforcement procedures into each

permit. Therefore, the fourth criterion

for Federal enforceability is met.

The fifth criterion for a state’s

construction and operating permit

program to be Federally enforceable is

providing EPA and the public with

timely notice of the proposal and

issuance of such permits, providing

EPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of

each proposed (or draft) and final

permit intended to be Federally

enforceable. This process must also

provide for an opportunity for public

comment on the permit applications

prior to issuance of the final permit.

SCAPCR 61–62.1 Section II G(5)(a)

requires that a permit intended to be

Federally enforceable shall be provided

to EPA and the public for a period of 30

days prior to its issuance. In addition,

if the State determines that a public

hearing is required the State will give

notice of a public hearing 30 days before

it occurs. SCAPCR 61–62.1 Section II

G(4)(g) requires DHEC to provide to EPA

on a timely basis a copy of each

proposed (draft permit) or final permit

intended to be Federally enforceable.

EPA notes that any permit which has

not gone through an opportunity for

public comment and EPA review under

the South Carolina FESCOP program

will not be Federally enforceable.

Hence, the fifth criteria for Federal

enforceability is met.

In addition to meeting the five criteria

for issuance of Federally enforceable

construction and operating permits, the

State provides for the issuance of

Federally enforceable general permits

which may cover several air pollution

sources in a source category with one

permit. These regulations mirror the

part 70 regulations found at 40 CFR

70.6(d) which govern the issuance of

title V general permits.

In addition to requesting approval

into the SIP, South Carolina also

requested on July 12, 1995, approval of

its FESCOP program under section

112(l) of the Act for the purpose of

creating Federally enforceable

limitations on the potential to emit of

HAPs through the issuance of Federally

enforceable state construction and

operating permits. Approval under

section 112(l) is necessary because the

proposed SIP approval discussed above

only extends to the control of criteria

pollutants.

EPA believes that the five criteria for

Federal enforceability are also

appropriate for evaluating and

approving FESCOP programs under

section 112(l). The June 28, 1989,

Federal Register document did not

specifically address HAPs because it

was written prior to the 1990

amendments to section 112, not because

it establishes requirements unique to

criteria pollutants.

In addition to meeting the criteria in

the June 28, 1989, document, a FESCOP

program that addresses HAP must meet

the statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5). Section 112(l) allows

EPA to approve a program only if it: (1)

Contains adequate authority to assure

compliance with any section 112

standards or requirements; (2) provides

for adequate resources; (3) provides for

an expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112

requirements; and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the CAA.

EPA plans to codify the approval

criteria for programs limiting potential

to emit of HAP, such as FESCOP

programs, through amendments to

Subpart E of Part 63, the regulations

promulgated to implement section

112(l) of the CAA. (See 58 FR 62262,

November 26, 1993.) EPA currently

anticipates that these regulatory criteria,

as they apply to FESCOP programs, will

mirror those set forth in the June 28,

1989, Federal Register document. The

EPA also anticipates that since FESCOP

programs approved pursuant to section

112(l) prior to the planned Subpart E

revisions will have been approved as

meeting these criteria, further approval

actions for those programs will not be

necessary.

EPA has authority under section

112(l) to approve programs to limit

potential to emit of HAPs directly under

section 112(l) prior to the Subpart E

revisions. Section 112(l)(5) requires the

EPA to disapprove programs that are

inconsistent with guidance required to

be issued under section 112(l)(2). This

might be read to suggest that the

‘‘guidance’’ referred to in section

112(l)(2) was intended to be a binding

rule. Even under this interpretation,

EPA does not believe that section 112(l)

requires this rulemaking to be

comprehensive. That is to say, it need

not address every possible instance of

approval under section 112(l). EPA has

already issued regulations under section

112(l) that would satisfy any section

112(l)(2) requirement for rulemaking.

Given the severe timing problems posed

by impending deadlines set forth in

‘‘maximum achievable control

technology’’ (MACT) emission

standards under section 112 and for

submittal of title V permit applications,

EPA believes it is reasonable to read

section 112(l) to allow for approval of

programs to limit potential to emit prior

to promulgation of a rule specifically

addressing this issue. Therefore, EPA is
63436 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

approving South Carolina’s FESCOP

program so that South Carolina may

issue Federally enforceable construction

and operating permits as soon as

possible.

Regarding the statutory criteria of

section 112(l)(5) referred to above, EPA

believes South Carolina’s FESCOP

program contains adequate authority to

assure compliance with section 112

requirements because the third criterion

of the June 28, 1989, Federal Register

document is met. That is to say, South

Carolina’s program does not allow for

the waiver of any section 112

requirement. Sources that become minor

through a permit issued pursuant to this

program would still be required to meet

section 112 requirements applicable to

non-major sources.

Regarding the requirement for

adequate resources, EPA believes South

Carolina has demonstrated that it will

provide for adequate resources to

support the FESCOP program. EPA

expects that resources will continue to

be adequate to administer that portion

of the State’s minor source construction

and operating permit program under

which Federally enforceable

construction and operating permits will

be issued since South Carolina has

administered a minor source

construction and operating permit

program for a number of years. EPA will

monitor South Carolina’s

implementation of its FESCOP program

to ensure that adequate resources are in

fact available. EPA also believes that

South Carolina’s FESCOP program

provides for an expeditious schedule for

assuring compliance with section 112

requirements. This program will be used

to allow a source to establish a

voluntary limit on potential to emit to

avoid being subject to a CAA

requirement applicable on a particular

date. Nothing in South Carolina’s

FESCOP program would allow a source

to avoid or delay compliance with a

CAA requirement if it fails to obtain an

appropriate Federally enforceable limit

by the relevant deadline. Finally, EPA

believes South Carolina’s program is

consistent with the intent of section 112

and the CAA for states to provide a

mechanism through which sources may

avoid classification as major sources by

obtaining Federally enforceable limits

on potential to emit.

Eligibility for Federally enforceable

permits extends not only to permits

issued after the effective date of this

rule, but also to permits issued under

the State’s current rule prior to the

effective date of today’s rulemaking. If

the State followed its own regulation,

each issued permit that established a

title I condition (e.g., for a source to

have minor source potential to emit)

was subject to public notice and prior

EPA review.

Therefore, EPA will consider all such

construction and operating permits

which were issued in a manner

consistent with both the State

regulations and the five criteria as

Federally enforceable upon the effective

date of this action provided that any

permits that the State wishes to make

Federally enforceable are submitted to

EPA and accompanied by

documentation that the procedures

approved today have been followed.

EPA will expeditiously review any

individual permits so submitted to

ensure their conformity with program

requirements.

With South Carolina’s addition of

these provisions and EPA’s approval of

this revision into the SIP, South

Carolina’s FESCOP program satisfies the

criteria described in the June 28, 1989,

Federal Register document.

Final Action

In this action, EPA is approving South

Carolina’s air permitting regulations as

submitted on July 12, 1995. EPA is

publishing this action without prior

proposal because the EPA views this as

a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in the

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This action will be effective

February 9, 1996 unless, within 30 days

of its publication, adverse or critical

comments are received. If EPA receives

such comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document that

will withdraw the final action. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this action will be

effective February 9, 1996.

The Agency has reviewed this request

for revision of the Federally-approved

SIP for conformance with the provisions

of the 1990 Amendments enacted on

November 15, 1990. EPA has

determined that this action conforms

with those requirements.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by February 9, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for

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) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).)

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP Actions

SIP approvals under 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

Section 7410(a)(2).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 63437

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated today does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

Reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

Recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: September 20, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart PP—South Carolina

2. Section 52.2120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(40) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(40) The minor source operating

permit program for South Carolina,

submitted by the Department of Health

and Environmental Control on July 12,

1995, and as part of the South Carolina

SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Regulation 61–62.1, Section I.3,

13, 19, 50, 72, and 73, Section II.F.2,

Section II.F.2.e, Section II.G, and

Section II.H of the South Carolina SIP

which became effective on June 23,

1995.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 95–30110 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300406; FRL–4989–6]

RIN 2070–AB78

Carbofuran; Tolerance Extension for

Canola

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule extends a timelimited tolerance for residues of the

insecticide 2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-

benzofuranyl-N-methylcarbamate

(common name ‘‘carbofuran’’) and its

metabolites in or on canola at 1.0 part

per million (ppm) for an additional 1-

year period, to February 22, 1998. EPA

is issuing this rule on its own initiative

following a request from the U.S. Canola

Association to allow the use of

carbofuran on canola in the 1996

growing season.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective December 11, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [OPP300406], 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 document 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 1B2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202. 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:

opp-docket@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 number [OPP-300406] . 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 submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:By

mail: Dennis H. Edwards, Jr., Product

Manager (PM) 19, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

Rm. 207, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-

6386; e-mail: edwards.dennis

@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

issued a proposed rule, published in the

Federal Register of November 8, 1994

(59 FR 55605), which announced that

on its own initiative and under section

408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.

346a(e), it proposed a time-limited,

regionally restricted tolerance for the

residues of carbofuran and its

metaboites in or on canola at 1.0 ppm.

EPA proposed the tolerance because

canola treated with carbofuran may not

be processed in the U.S. and must be

exported to Canada. A 2-year timelimited tolerance was established by a

rule in the Federal Register of February

22, 1995 (60 FR 9781), with an

expiration date of February 22, 1997.

Registrations associated with this

tolerance will be regionally restricted to

Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North

Dakota, and Washington.

In Federal Register of October 25,

1995 (60 FR 54685), EPA issued a notice

of receipt of a request from the U.S.

Canola Association asking for a 1-year

extension of the canola tolerance. This

extension would then allow the use of

carbofuran on canola in the 1996

growing season. The use of carbofuran