24460 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 52.1919 Identification of plan-conditional

approval.

(a) The plan commitments listed

below were submitted on the dates

specified.

(1) [Reserved]

(2) On April 20, 1994, Ohio submitted

Rule 3745–35–07, entitled ‘‘Federally

Enforceable Limitations on Potential to

Emit,’’ and requested authority to issue

such limitations as conditions in State

operating permits. On June 16, 1994,

Ohio submitted a commitment to revise

Rule 3745–35–07 to clarify that the rule

provides for USEPA objection to permits

after issuance. The revisions are

approved provided Ohio fulfills this

commitment by October 25, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 3745–35–07, adopted April

4, 1994, effective April 20, 1994.

(b) (Reserved)

[FR Doc. 96–12119 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL–5461–6]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program;

Delegation of Section 112 Standards;

State of Massachusetts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On February 2, 1996, the

Environmental Protection Agency

published a proposed and direct final

rule promulgating interim approval of

the Operating Permits Program

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts for the purpose of

complying with the Federal

requirements of an approved program to

issue operating permits to all major

stationary sources, and to certain other

sources, with the exception of Indian

Lands. This submittal for the operating

permits program was made by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on

April 28, 1995. The 30-day comment

period for these documents concluded

on March 4, 1996. Also in this

document, EPA is correcting the date for

the interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program for the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on May 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida

E. Gagnon, Air Permits Program, CAP,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 1, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203–2211, (617) 565–3500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 2, 1996, EPA published a

direct final rule (61 FR 3827) which

announced that this rule would take

effect in 60 days, or April 2, 1996,

unless EPA received adverse comment

on the rule within 30 days of

publication in response to a notice of

proposed rulemaking published on the

same day (61 FR 3893). EPA also

committed to withdraw the direct final

rule in the event it received adverse

comment, and to respond to any adverse

comments in a subsequent final

rulemaking action. EPA did receive a

timely adverse comment on this rule.

EPA failed, however, to withdraw the

final rule within the 60 days given in

the direct final rule, and the rule took

effect on April 2, 1996.

In this document, EPA is responding

to the comment it received, but for the

reasons stated below, EPA is not

changing the final rule in response to

that comment. For reasons unrelated to

the comment, EPA is correcting a

clerical error in the effective date of the

rule, as explained below. Had EPA

withdrawn the direct final rule prior to

its going into effect, EPA would have

taken final action based on the proposal

to promulgate a rule identical to the

direct final rule that went into effect.

Rather than now take the action of

withdrawing the direct final rule only to

repromulgate simultaneously an

identical rule, however, EPA in this

action is deciding to maintain the rule

unchanged. EPA believes that

withdrawal and repromulgation are

unnecessary since the results would be

identical to that obtained simply by

leaving the rule unchanged and

responding to the comments in this

document. This document provides

interested parties an opportunity to

review how EPA addressed the

comment, and to petition for review of

EPA’s action in this final rulemaking

within 60 days of publication of this

document, as provided in section

307(b)(1) of the Act.

I. Summary of Comments and

Responses

EPA received two comments from the

National Environmental Development

Association’s Clean Air Regulatory

Project (NEDA/CARP). First, NEDA/

CARP disagrees with EPA’s statement

that ‘‘prompt reporting [of deviations]

must be more frequent than the semiannual reporting requirement, given this

is a distinct reporting obligation under

Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).’’ NEDA/CARP

believes there is no legal basis for such

a statement. Therefore, NEDA/CARP

asserts EPA has no basis for expecting

deviations to be reported more often

than every 6 months.

EPA disagrees that there is no legal

basis for this statement. Section

503(b)(2) of the Act requires a permittee

‘‘to promptly report any deviations from

permit requirements to the permitting

authority.’’ This requirement to report

deviations promptly is distinct from

section 504(a) of the Act which requires

the results of all monitoring to be

submitted no less often than every six

months. The Act clearly distinguishes

between the routine semi-annual

reporting of all monitoring, whether or

not deviations have occurred, from the

requirements to report deviations that

may be violations of the Act and that at

least provide an indication of potential

compliance problems. It makes sense

that Congress would expect permittees

to report potential Act violations more

quickly than routine monitoring that

confirms compliance. Additionally, the

statute has a clear requirement for

prompt reporting of deviations and EPA

believes that six months is not prompt

when dealing with information that may

document a violation of the Clean Air

Act.

Second, in the February 2, 1996

rulemaking, EPA proposes interim

approval of the program regulation

unless the Commonwealth changes its

rule to ensure that all ‘‘significant’’

monitoring changes, not just

‘‘relaxations’’ are processed as

significant changes. NEDA/CARP points

out that this change may not be required

when the proposed changes to Part 70

are finalized and requests EPA take this

issue into consideration before the state

revises its procedures.

EPA understands the concerns of

NEDA/CARP, but EPA is obligated to

evaluate the Commonwealth’s program

based on Part 70 rules promulgated on

July 21, 1992. Once the proposed

changes to Part 70 are finalized, EPA

and the Commonwealth will revisit this

matter and address it consistent with

the program transition provisions of the

revised Part 70 regulations.

II. Final Rulemaking Action

Except for the effective date, as

explained below, EPA is not modifying

the interim approval to the operating

permits program associated with the

February 2, 1996 direct final rulemaking

in response to the comments EPA

received. The State must make the

changes specified in the proposed

rulemaking, under II.A.2., Regulations

and Program Implementation, in order

to be granted full approval.

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to 2 years. During the interim approval

period, the Commonwealth is protected

from sanctions for failure to have a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 15, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24461

program, and EPA is not obligated to

promulgate a Federal permits program

in the Commonwealth. Permits issued

under a program with interim approval

have full standing with respect to Part

70, and the 1-year time period under the

Act for submittal of permit applications

by subject sources begins upon interim

approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications.

The scope of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts’ part 70 program applies

to all part 70 sources (as defined in the

approved program) within the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

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).

EPA is also not modifying its approval

of DEP’s authority to implement and

enforce section 112 standards at Part 70

sources. Requirements for operating

permit program approval, specified in

40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to Part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the State’s

program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under Part 70. Therefore, the EPA has

also granted approval under section

112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State’s

program for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are

unchanged from Federal standards as

promulgated. This program for

delegations only applies to sources

covered by the Part 70 program.

EPA is hereby correcting a mistaken

effective date for our interim approval.

The prior document indicated an

effective date of March 4, 1996, 30 days

from the date of publication of the

document rather than the correct date of

April 2, 1996, 60 days from the date of

publication of the document. In light of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Act (SBREFA) which

became effective on March 29, 1996

prior to the April 2, 1996 corrected date,

the rule will take effect on the latter of

the rule’s submission to Congress or the

date of publication. The rule has been

submitted to Congress, therefore, this

final rulemaking will be effective May

15, 1996.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the Commonwealth’s

submittal and other information relied

upon for the final interim approval,

including public comments received

and reviewed by EPA on the proposal,

are maintained in a docket at the EPA

Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this final interim approval. The

docket is available for public inspection

at the location under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. Opportunity 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 July 15, 1996.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

C. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The 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.

E. 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

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.

Dated: April 2, 1996.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by revising the entry for Massachusetts

to reflect the dates of the final

rulemaking to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Massachusetts

(a) Department of Environmental

Protection: submitted on April 28, 1995;

interim approval effective on April 2, 1996;

interim approval expires April 2, 1998.

(b) (Reserved)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–12077 Filed 5–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P