Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26145

1Note that states may require applications to be

submitted earlier than required under section

503(c). See Subchapter X, Section 5–1005 of

Vermont’s rules.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–13174 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FL–5510–2]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program;

Delegation of Section 112 Standards;

State of Vermont

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by Vermont for the

purpose of complying with Federal

requirements for an approvable State

program to issue operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources. EPA is also approving

Vermont’s authority to implement

hazardous air pollutant requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Donald Dahl, Air Permits,

CAP, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203–2211. Copies of the

State’s submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the

proposed interim approval are available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 1, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA 02203–2211.

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 and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments (sections

501–507 of the Clean Air Act (‘‘the

Act’’)), EPA has promulgated rules

which define the minimum elements of

an approvable State operating permits

program and the corresponding

standards and procedures by which the

EPA will approve, oversee, and

withdraw approval of State operating

permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July

21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

70. Title V requires States to develop,

and submit to EPA, programs for issuing

these operating permits to all major

stationary sources and to certain other

sources.

The Act requires that States develop

and submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of Part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by 2 years

after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA were to finalize this proposed

interim approval, it would extend for

two years following the effective date of

final interim approval, and could not be

renewed. During the interim approval

period, the State of Vermont would be

protected from sanctions, and EPA

would not be obligated to promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for the State of

Vermont. 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 interim

approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications 1.

Following final interim approval, if

the State of Vermont failed to submit a

complete corrective program for full

approval by the date 6 months before

expiration of the interim approval, EPA

would start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the State of

Vermont then failed to submit a

corrective program that EPA found

complete before the expiration of that

18-month period, EPA would apply

sanctions as required by section

502(d)(2) of the Act, which would

remain in effect until EPA determined

that the State of Vermont had corrected

the deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. If, six months after

application of the first sanction, the

State of Vermont still has not submitted

a corrective program that EPA finds

complete, a second sanction will be

required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the State of

Vermont’s complete corrective program,

EPA would be required under section

502(d)(2) to apply sanctions on the date

18 months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

State of Vermont had submitted a

revised program and EPA had

determined that it corrected the

deficiencies that prompted the

disapproval. If, six months after EPA

applies the first sanction, the State of

Vermont has not submitted a revised

program that EPA has determined

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

disapproval, a second sanction will be

required.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to the State of Vermont’s

program by the expiration of an interim

approval and that expiration occurs

after November 15, 1995, EPA must

promulgate, administer and enforce a

Federal permits program for the State of

Vermont upon interim approval

expiration.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The analysis contained in this

document focuses on specific elements

of Vermont’s title V operating permits

program that must be corrected to meet

the minimum requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. The full program submittal,

technical support document (TSD),

dated April 19, 1996 entitled ‘‘Technical

Support Document—Vermont Operating

Permits Program’’, which contains a

detailed analysis of the submittal, and

other relevant materials are available for

inspection as part of the public docket.

The docket may be viewed during

regular business hours at the address

listed above.

1. Title V Program Support Materials

Vermont’s title V program was

submitted by the State on April 28, 1995

(PROGRAM). The submittal was found

to be administratively complete on June

12, 1995. The PROGRAM consisted of a

Governor’s letter, program description,

Attorney General’s legal opinion,

permitting regulations and enabling

legislation, and permitting program

documentation. Included with the

PROGRAM submittal was a draft

implementation agreement which will

be finalized by EPA and Vermont. The
26146 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

agreement outlines procedures for EPA

oversight, the state’s administration of

the PROGRAM, and state commitments

for implementing future air toxic

regulations. On March 6, 1996, Vermont

submitted a supplement to their

PROGRAM, which included a revised

Attorney General Opinion, a revised

permit form, and a letter of intention for

delegation of standards under sections

111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act.

2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations

and Implementation

Vermont’s regulations implementing

Part 70 include Environmental

Protection Regulations, Air Pollution

Control Chapter V, Definitions (§ 5–101)

and Subchapter X (§§ 5–1001–1016,

Operating Permits). The Vermont

PROGRAM, including the operating

permit regulations, substantially meets

the requirements of 40 CFR part 70,

including §§ 70.2 and 70.3 with respect

to applicability, §§ 70.4, 70.5 and 70.6

with the respect to permit content and

operational flexibility, §§ 70.7 and 70.8

with respect to public participation and

review by affected states and EPA, and

§ 70.11 with respect to requirements for

enforcement authority. Although the

regulations substantially meet Part 70

requirements, there are program

deficiencies that are outlined in section

II.B. below as Interim Approval issues.

Those Interim Approval issues are more

fully discussed in the TSD. The ‘‘Issues’’

section of the TSD also contains a

detailed discussion of elements of Part

70 that are not explicitly contained in

Vermont’s regulation, but which are

satisfied by other elements of Vermont’s

program submittal and/or other

Vermont State law. Also discussed in

the TSD are certain elements of

Vermont’s title V regulation that are in

need of a legal interpretation and which

EPA is interpreting to be consistent with

Part 70 with the understanding that

Vermont shares such interpretation.

Those elements include: (1) the absence

of the language ‘‘[a]ny national ambient

air quality standard or increment or

visibility requirement under Part C of

title I of the Act, but only as it would

apply to temporary sources permitted

pursuant to section 504(e) of the Act’’ in

Vermont’s definition of ‘‘applicable

requirement’’; (2) Section 5–1014 of

Vermont’s rule relating to ‘‘off-permit’’

changes; (3) Vermont’s treatment of

‘‘insignificant activities’’ under Sections

5–1002 and 5–1006; (4) Vermont’s

authority to make applicability

determinations in Section 5–1003; (5)

Vermont’s treatment of the stringency of

compliance schedules contained in

permits as required by 40 CFR

70.5(8)(iii)(C); (6) Vermont’s treatment

of certain permit content elements

required by 40 CFR 70.6; (7) Vermont’s

method for providing adequate,

streamlined, and reasonable procedures

for expeditiously processing permit

modifications; and (8) Vermont’s

requirements for the time frames and

detailed contents of compliance

certifications. EPA understands that

Vermont will implement its program

consistent with these interpretations,

and will base this interim approval on

these interpretations unless Vermont

comments to the contrary.

Variances. Vermont’s Air Quality

Variance Board has the authority to

issue a variance from requirements

imposed by State law. See 10 V.S.A.

§ 561. The EPA regards Vermont’s

variance provisions as wholly external

to the program submitted for approval

under Part 70 and consequently is

proposing to take no action on these

provisions of State law. The EPA has no

authority to approve provisions of State

law that are inconsistent with the Act.

The EPA does not recognize the ability

of a permitting authority to grant relief

from the duty to comply with a federally

enforceable Part 70 permit, except

where such relief is granted through

procedures allowed by Part 70. A Part

70 permit may be issued or revised

(consistent with Part 70 procedures), to

incorporate those terms of a variance

that are consistent with applicable

requirements. A Part 70 permit may also

incorporate, via Part 70 permit issuance

or revision procedures, the schedule of

compliance set forth in a variance.

However, EPA reserves the right to

pursue enforcement of applicable

requirements notwithstanding the

existence of a compliance schedule in a

permit to operate. This is consistent

with 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which

states that a schedule of compliance

‘‘shall be supplemental to, and shall not

sanction noncompliance with, the

applicable requirements on which it is

based.’’

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

Section 502(B)(3) of the Act requires

that each permitting authority collect

fees sufficient to cover all reasonable

direct and indirect costs required to

develop and administer its title V

operating permit program. Each title V

program submittal must contain either a

detailed demonstration of fee adequacy

or a demonstration that the fees

collected exceed $25 per ton of actual

emissions per year, adjusted from the

August, 1989 consumer price index

(‘‘CPI’’). The $25 per ton was presumed

by Congress to cover all reasonable

direct and indirect costs to an operating

permit program. This minimum amount

is referred to as the ‘‘presumptive

minimum.’’

Vermont has opted to make a

presumptive fee demonstration.

Vermont has demonstrated that actual

emissions emitted from their title V

sources was 5079 tons, excluding

carbon monoxide. Vermont’s permit fee

legislation requires that each title V

source pay an annual fee based on $800

per facility and $30 per ton. Therefore

Vermont will collect $219,375. Using

Vermont’s application and emission

fees, the State will collect $43.19 per ton

annually which is above the

presumptive minimum adjusted by the

CPI.

Therefore, Vermont has demonstrated

that the State will collect sufficient

permit fees to meet EPA’s presumptive

minimum criteria. For more

information, see section VII of

Vermont’s title V program

documentation.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and/or Commitments for

Section 112 Implementation

Vermont has demonstrated in its title

V program submittal adequate legal

authority to implement and enforce all

section 112 requirements through the

title V permit. This legal authority is

contained in Vermont’s enabling

legislation, regulatory provisions

defining ‘‘applicable requirements,’’ and

the requirement that a title V permit

must incorporate all applicable

requirements. EPA has determined that

this legal authority is sufficient to allow

Vermont to issue permits that assure

compliance with all section 112

requirements and to carry out all section

112 activities. In addition, given

Vermont’s commitments regarding

implementation of the State’s title V

program, EPA has determined that the

State will issue permits that assure

compliance with all section 112

requirements, and will carry out all

section 112 activities. For further

discussion of this subject, please refer to

the Technical Support Document,

referenced above, and the April 13, 1993

guidance memorandum titled ‘‘Title V

Program Approval Criteria for Section

112 Activities,’’ signed by John Seitz,

Director of the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards.

b. Implementation of 112(g) Upon

Program Approval

On February 14, 1995, EPA published

an interpretive notice (see 60 FR 8333)

that postpones the effective date of

section 112(g) until after EPA has

promulgated a rule addressing the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26147

2 The radionuclide National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section

112 regulation and therefore, also an applicable

requirement under the State operating permits

program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a

Federal definition of ‘‘major source’’ for

radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a major

source definition for radionuclide is promulgated,

no source would be a major section 112 source

solely due to its radionuclide emissions. However,

a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a

major source under Part 70 for another reason, thus

requiring a Part 70 permit. The EPA will work with

the State in the development of its radionuclide

program to ensure that permits are issued in a

timely manner.

requirements of that provision. The

section 112(g) interpretive notice

explains that EPA is still considering

whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the

date of promulgation of the Federal rule

so as to allow States time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule, and that

EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until

EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of the effective date of

section 112(g), Vermont must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption

of implementing State regulations for

section 112(g) requirements. EPA

believes that Vermont can utilize its

preconstruction permitting program to

serve as a procedural vehicle for

implementing the section 112(g) rule

and making these requirements

Federally enforceable between

promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of

implementing State regulations for

section 112(g). For this reason, EPA is

proposing to approve Vermont’s

preconstruction permitting program

found in 10 V.S.A. § 5–501 under the

authority of title V and Part 70 solely for

the purpose of implementing section

112(g) during the transition period

between title V approval and adoption

of a State rule implementing EPA’s

section 112(g) regulations.

Since the approval would be for the

single purpose of providing a

mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period, the

approval would be without effect if EPA

decides in the final section 112(g) rule

that sources are not subject to the

requirements of the rule until State

regulations are adopted. Also, since the

approval would be for the limited

purpose of allowing the State sufficient

time to adopt regulations, EPA proposes

to limit the duration of the approval to

18 months following promulgation by

EPA of its section 112(g) rule.

c. Program for Straight Delegation of

Sections 111 and 112 Standards

The part 70 requirements for approval

of a State operating permit program,

specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass

section 112(l)(5) requirements for

approval of a program for delegation of

the hazardous air pollutant program

General Provisions, Subpart A, of 40

CFR parts 61 and 63, promulgated under

section 112 of the Act, and MACT

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that a State’s program

contain adequate legal authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under Part 70. The Vermont Department

of Environmental Conservation

provided a supplemental request on

March 6, 1996, for non-part 70 sources

which contained information regarding

adequate legal authorities, adequate

resources for implementation, and an

expeditious compliance schedule.

Therefore, EPA is also proposing to

grant approval under section 112(l)(5)

and 40 CFR 63.91 of Vermont’s

mechanism for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards for both major

and area sources, that are unchanged

from the Federal standards as

promulgated (straight delegation) and

section 112 infrastructure programs

such as those programs authorized

under sections 112(i)(5), 112(g), 112(j),

and 112(r). In addition, EPA is

reconfirming the delegation of 40 CFR

part 60 standards currently delegated to

Vermont as indicated in Table I. Please

note EPA has withdrawn delegation of

Subpart XX, ‘‘Bulk Gas Terminals’’ per

Vermont’s request. Vermont requested

the withdrawal because there currently

are no Subpart XX sources in the State.

EPA is proposing to delegate all

applicable future 40 CFR parts 60, 61,

and 63 standards pursuant to the

following mechanism unless otherwise

requested by Vermont.2 Vermont will

accept future delegation of standards by

checking the appropriate boxes on a

standardized checklist. The EPA

Regional Office will forward a checklist

listing the applicable regulations to

Vermont, and Vermont will accept the

Federal standard as promulgated by

checking the appropriate box and

returning it to EPA. The details of this

delegation mechanism are set forth in

the March 6, 1996 letter containing a

Memorandum of Agreement between

EPA and Vermont. This program will

apply to both existing and future

standards. The original delegation

agreement between EPA and Vermont

was set forth in a letter to Brendan J.

Whittaker dated September 30, 1982. In

addition, Vermont has indicated that for

some section 112 standards it may

choose to submit a more stringent State

rule or program through section 112(l).

EPA will need to take public notice and

comment for any section 112 delegation

other than straight delegation.

Vermont is implementing this

delegation by issuing permits to both

major and area/minor sources. Permits

issued to area/minor sources are not

title V permits and therefore may not be

federally enforceable.

d. Implementation of Title IV of the Act

Vermont has stated in Section 5–

1008(g) of Subchapter X that the

‘‘Secretary shall implement the

requirements and provisions of Title IV

of the federal Clean Air Act.’’

B. Proposed Action

The scope of Vermont’s Part 70

program covers all Part 70 sources

within the state of Vermont, 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).

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 and nonpart 70 sources. As discussed above,

Vermont’s submittal meets the

requirements for EPA approval of

delegation of section 112 standards.

Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to

grant approval under section 112(l)(5)

and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State’s

mechanism for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are

unchanged from Federal standards as

promulgated. Vermont will be issuing

permits containing section 112

standards to both major and area/minor

sources; therefore, EPA is delegating

authority to implement these standards

for all sources subject to the standards,

not just for part 70 sources.

The EPA is proposing to grant interim

approval to the operating permits

program submitted by Vermont on April

28, 1995. If promulgated, the State must

make the following changes to receive

full approval:
26148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1. Vermont does not allow for

‘‘section 502(b)(10)’’ changes at a title V

source. In an August 29, 1994 (59 FR

44572) rulemaking proposal, EPA

proposed to eliminate section 502(b)(10)

changes as a mechanism for

implementing operational flexibility.

However, the Agency solicited comment

on the rationale for this proposed

elimination. If EPA should conclude,

during a final rulemaking, that section

502(b)(10) changes are no longer

required as a mechanism for operational

flexibility, then Vermont will not be

required to address 502(b)(10) changes

in its rule.

2. In Sections 5–1014 and 5–

1015(a)(11), the program regulation

implementing operational flexibility

requirements allows the State the

discretion to incorporate emission

trades into a permit, and does not

require that the emissions involved in

such trades be quantifiable. EPA’s rule

states that when a permitting authority

agrees to establish an emissions cap in

a title V permit independent of

otherwise applicable requirements, the

permitting authority must include

emission trading provisions for

complying with that cap requested by

the permit applicant, as long as those

provisions are quantifiable and include

the compliance requirements of 40 CFR

70.6 (a) and (c). EPA’s rule also requires

that the emissions involved in such

trades be quantifiable before a title V

permit can provide for the trades. See

§ 70.4(b)(12)(iii). However, if a source

requests an emission trade that could

violate an underlying state requirement,

the State has the discretion to limit any

emission trading consistent with the

state requirement when issuing the

operating permit.

Vermont must therefore adopt

regulatory language requiring the State

to include, upon request by a source,

emission trading provisions in a title V

permit for the purpose of complying

with an emissions cap established in the

permit, provided that the emissions

involved in such trades are quantifiable.

Vermont retains the option to include

language in its regulation that would

require all such trades to be consistent

with state requirements as well as

applicable requirements.

3. In Section 5–1008(e)(1), the

program regulation states that Vermont

has the discretion to reopen and reissue

a title V permit for cause. In Section 5–

1008(e)(4) (i)–(vi), the program

regulation enumerates the conditions

which would potentially cause Vermont

to reopen a permit. EPA’s rule requires

a permitting authority to reopen and

reissue a permit when certain

conditions exist (or ‘‘for cause’’ as

defined by the regulation). See 40 CFR

70.7(f). Thus, Vermont must change the

word ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ in Section 5–

1008(e)(1). Vermont must also include a

provision in its rule requiring the State

to reopen and reissue a permit (with a

remaining term of 3 or more years)

within 18 months of a source’s

becoming subject to an additional

applicable requirement. See

§ 70.7(f)(1)(i).

4. Vermont must adopt provisions in

Subchapter X which would require that

every permit contain certain terms and

conditions as specified in section 70.6.

Vermont’s current permit content

section, found at Section 5–1015 of

Subchapter X, does not contain all of

the terms and conditions in § 70.6.

Section 5–1015 of the program rule

requires permit terms which generally

address applicable requirements,

emission monitoring and reporting, and

compliance plans. Vermont will need to

add the following missing requirements

of section 70.6: (a) a source’s obligation

to report promptly any permit

deviations (section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)); (b)

a source’s obligation to maintain a

record when switching between

operating scenarios (section

70.6(a)(9)(i)); (c) the State’s obligation to

separate in a title V permit those permit

terms which are enforceable by the State

only (and to specifically designate them

as such) from those which are

enforceable by both the State and EPA

(sections 70.6(b) (1) and (2)); and (d) the

State’s obligation to indicate in a title V

permit the origin and authority of all

permit terms and conditions, and

identify any difference in form as

compared to the applicable requirement

upon which a permit term or condition

is based (section 70.6(a)(1)(i)).

There are several ways Vermont could

revise its rule to address the separation

of federal and state requirements. One

option suggested by EPA’s recent

‘‘White Paper Number 2,’’ dated March

5, 1996, is to clarify which state

requirements are not federallyenforceable in the Findings of Fact

section of the draft permit. This

separation would identify for all

concerned parties the federal applicable

requirements and the requirements

based solely on State law. If Vermont

proposed to consolidate the State and

federal requirements in the permit terms

and conditions, Vermont would then

have to use the most stringent limit as

the permit condition in the draft permit.

If an applicant objected during the

public comment period to the

consolidation of federal and State

requirements, Vermont would have to

separate the permit conditions within

the enforceable terms and conditions

section of the final permit. Vermont’s

regulation must clearly provide the

permit applicant the authority to require

the State to separate out State-only

permit terms and conditions.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket maintained at the

EPA Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the administrative

record in the event of judicial review.

The EPA will consider any comments

received by June 24, 1996.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

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 action

promulgated today does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26149

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 preexisting 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 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Table I to the Preamble

Reconfirmation of Part 60 and 61 Delegations

Part 60 Subpart Categories

Da ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM

GENERATORS

Dc SMALL INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIALINSTITUTIONAL STEAM GENERATING

UNITS

E INCINERATORS

I ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS

RR TAPE AND LABEL SURFACE

COATINGS

OOO NONMETALLIC MINERAL

PROCESSING PLANTS

UUU CALCINERS AND DRYERS IN

MINERALS INDUSTRY

Part 61 Subpart Categories

M ASBESTOS

[FR Doc. 96–13151 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 136

[FRL–5509–7]

Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures for the Analysis of Oil and

Grease and Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbons: Reopening of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening

the comment period for the proposal to

amend the Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures under section 304(h) of the

Clean Water Act to replace existing

gravimetric test procedures for the

conventional pollutant ‘‘oil and grease’’

with EPA Method 1664, which was

published in the Federal Register on

January 23, 1996 (61 FR 1730). The

public comment period for the proposed

rule ended on March 25, 1996.

EPA has received several requests for

an extension of time to comment on the

proposed rule, on the grounds that

several issues that the rule addresses

require additional time for a proper

evaluation. The Agency has determined

that an extension of time is in the public

interest, and that an additional 60 days

to comment on the proposed rule is

reasonable.

DATES: Comments on this proposal will

be accepted until July 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

the proposed rule to ‘‘Method 1664’’

Comment Clerk; Water Docket MC–

4101; Environmental Protection Agency;

401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C.

20460. Commenters are requested to

submit any references cited in their

comments. Commenters are also

requested to submit an original and 3

copies of their written comments and

enclosures. Commenters who want

receipt of their comments acknowledged

should include a self addressed,

stamped envelope. All comments must

be postmarked or delivered by hand by

July 23, 1996. No facsimiles (faxes) will

be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ben Honaker, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), USEPA Office of

Science and Technology, 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460, or call

(202) 260–2272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 23, 1996, EPA published a

proposed rule at 61 FR 1730 to replace

existing gravimetric procedures for the

conventional pollutant ‘‘oil and grease’’

(40 CFR 401.16) with EPA Method 1664

as part of EPA’s effort to reduce

dependency on the use of

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Method

1664 uses normal hexane (n-hexane) as

the extraction solvent in place of 1,1,2-

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC–

113). This proposal would withdraw

approval of EPA Method 413.1 and

Standard Methods Method 5520B,

which use CFC–113 as the extraction

solvent. In an effort to provide for the

use and depletion of existing laboratory

stocks of CFC–113, EPA plans to

implement the required use of Method

1664 no sooner than six months after

the final rule is published in the Federal

Register. Method 1664 was also

proposed for the determination of total

petroleum hydrocarbons.

This extension of time for comment

neither represents any modification of

the proposed rule, nor indicates a

change in the Agency’s interpretation of

the existing requirements. The

extension of time for receipt of

comments simply provides those

interested parties an additional 60 days

to provide comments to the Agency on

the proposed rule. All other

requirements stipulated in the initial

proposal for receipt of comments still

apply.

All written comments submitted in

accordance with the instructions in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

received by July 23, 1996, including

those received between the close of the

comment period on March 25, 1996, and

the publication of this notice, will be

entered into the public record and

considered by EPA before promulgation

of the final rule.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 96–13087 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP4E4420 and 6E4638/P656; FRL–5370–2]

RIN 2070–AC18

Metolachlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish

time-limited tolerances for residues of

the herbicide metolachlor and its

metabolites in or on the raw agricultural

commodities pepper, and forage and

hay of the grass forage, fodder and hay

crop group (excluding Bermudagrass).

The proposed regulation to establish

maximum permissible levels for

residues of the herbicide was requested

in petitions submitted by the

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4). The tolerances would expire on

December 31, 1998.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PP 4E4420 and 6E4638/

P656], must be received on or before

June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202. Comments and data may also be

submitted to OPP by sending electronic

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