Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 36295

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

APA, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), EPA submitted, by the

effective date of this rule, a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by APA

§ 804(2), as amended.

As noted above, EPA is issuing this

action as rulemaking. There is a

question as to whether this action is a

rule of ‘‘particular applicability’’, under

section 804(3)(A) of APA as amended by

SBREFA—and thus exempt from the

congressional submission

requirements—because this rule applies

only to named states. In this case, EPA

has decided to err on the side of

submitting this rule to Congress, but

will continue to consider this issue of

the scope of the exemption for rules of

‘‘particular applicability’’.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any

information collection requirements

which require OMB approval under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

I. Judicial Review

Under CAA Section 307(b)(1), a

petition to review today’s action may be

filed in the Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia within 60 days of

July 10, 1996.

Dated: July 3, 1996.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17545 Filed 7–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5531–3]

Approval of State Programs and

Delegation of Federal Authorities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises the

‘‘Approval of State Programs and

Delegation of Federal Authorities’’

(subpart E). The amendments are being

made to clarify regulatory text, reduce

administrative burden and provide more

flexibility to States using this

rulemaking. Additionally, today’s action

does not have any environmental

impact. As a result, the Agency does not

anticipate receiving adverse comments.

Consequently, the amendments are

being issued as a direct final rule.

DATES: The direct final rule will be

effective August 19, 1996 unless

significant, adverse comments are

received by August 9, 1996. If

significant, timely adverse comments

are received on the direct final rule, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–96–09,

Room M–1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests that a separate copy also be

sent to the contact person listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Gilbert Wood at (919) 541–5272 or Ms.

Sheila Q. Milliken at (919) 541–2625,

Integrated Implementation Group,

Information Transfer and Program

Integration Division (MD–12), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially affected by this

action are State, local, or tribal

governments that voluntarily implement

Clean Air Act (Act) section 112 rules,

emission standards, or requirements.

This action does not regulate emission

sources directly. Regulated categories

and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

State, local,

tribal governments.

State, local, or tribal governments that voluntarily request approval of rules or

programs to be implemented in place of Act section 112 rules, emission

standards or requirements

or voluntarily request delegation of unchanged section 112 rules.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. The existing procedures and

criteria for requesting and receiving

approval of these State, local, or tribal

government rules or programs or

voluntarily requesting delegation of

unchanged section 112 rules are in

sections 63.90 through 63.95 of this

subpart.

On November 26, 1993 (58 FR 62262),

the EPA promulgated in the Federal

Register guidance relating to the

approval of State programs and

delegation of Federal authorities under

the authority of section 112(l) of the Act.

Section 112(l)(2) of the Act requires the

EPA to publish guidance useful to States

in developing programs for

implementing and enforcing emission

standards and other requirements for

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The use

of delegation under section 112(l) is

voluntary on the part of the States. The

regulations were promulgated as subpart

E in 40 CFR part 63.

Today’s action modifies the subpart E

final regulation to improve clarity of

administrative procedures and eliminate

unnecessary and, in some cases,

impractical requirements imposed on

the States. Today’s changes do not

significantly modify the requirements of

the regulation. The revisions are

discussed in the order in which they

appear in the subpart E regulation. If

timely significant adverse comments are

received on any amendment of this

direct final rule, that amendment of the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all such comments will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule contained in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register that addresses issues in this

direct final rule. If no timely significant

adverse comments are received on this

direct final rule, then the direct final

rule will become effective August 19,

1996 and no further action is

contemplated on the parallel proposal

published today.

Preamble Outline

The following outline is provided to

aid in locating information in this

preamble.

I. Description of Changes

A. Approval of State Mechanism to Receive

Delegation of Existing and Future

Unchanged Federal Section 112

Standards and Requirements

B. Deletion of 6-month Reporting

Requirement

C. Additional Language Regarding

Implementation of Chemical Safety

Hazard Investigation Board Requirement

D. Approval of State Rules and Programs

Designed to Limit Potential to Emit (PTE)

II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

III. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office
36296 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

I. Description of Changes

A. Approval of State Mechanism to

Receive Delegation of Existing and

Future Unchanged Federal Section 112

Standards and Requirements

Section 63.91 of the subpart E rule

establishes a process for straight

delegation of individual maximum

achievable control technology (MACT)

standards after they are promulgated,

but it does not include a process for

approving a program for delegation of

all future MACT standards through a

single, advance program approval. State

and local agencies have asked for a more

streamlined method for taking

delegation of future and existing

unchanged Federal section 112

standards and requirements.

The EPA agrees with the merit of a

program that will allow State and local

agencies to receive upfront approval of

the mechanism with which they would

take delegation of existing and future

unchanged Federal section 112

standards. Such a program would

eliminate the need for State and local

agencies to submit individual requests

for delegation of unchanged Federal

section 112 standards on a rule-by-rule

basis. Regional Offices would benefit by

receiving early identification of States’

intentions for receiving delegation. State

and local agencies would have minimal

administrative burden in submitting

their requests for approval.

The EPA established policy for such

a process for sources subject to part 70

permitting through a memorandum

entitled, ‘‘Straight Delegations Issues

Concerning Sections 111 and 112

Requirements and Title V,’’ dated

December 10, 1993, from John Seitz,

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, U.S. EPA. A similar

program for sources not subject to part

70 is detailed in the revised enabling

guidance for subpart E (‘‘Interim

Enabling Guidance for the

Implementation of 40 CFR part 63,

subpart E,’’ dated November 1993, EPA–

453/R–93–040). The EPA intends to

codify the policy described in the

memorandum and guidance in this

direct final rulemaking. Therefore, EPA

is making the necessary revisions to the

subpart E rule to include a process of

approving State mechanisms for

receiving delegation of existing and

future unchanged Federal section 112

standards and requirements consistent

with its current policy. Submittals

previously approved before today’s

action will not be affected. Revisions are

being made to sections 63.90 and 63.91

which specifically indicate that States

can request upfront EPA approval of the

State’s mechanism for taking delegation

of future unchanged Federal section 112

standards and requirements.

B. Deletion of 6-Month Reporting

Requirement

The subpart E rule currently contains

a provision which requires 6-month

reporting by sources of all required

monitoring or testing for the State rule

which replaces a Federal rule

(§ 63.93(b)(4)(iv)). This requirement was

originally placed in the subpart E rule

to be consistent with requirements in

the part 70 operating permit rule at 40

CFR part 70, § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).

State and local agencies believe that

the 6-month reporting requirement for

regulated sources is duplicative of

reporting requirements already included

in individual MACT standards and the

title V permit program regulations. They

feel that this requirement is unnecessary

and creates paperwork with little or no

benefit.

An example of where this

requirement could adversely affect a

source is in the case where the MACT

rule only requires yearly reporting. If a

State wanted to substitute their rule for

the Federal MACT rule, the source

would be required to report every 6

months due to the existing subpart E

requirement. Area sources do not trigger

the 6-month reporting requirement of

title V, and thus, should only be

required to report yearly. Nonetheless,

subpart E currently mandates 6-month

reporting. Consequently, it imposes, an

unnecessary additional burden on

sources in States with delegated air

toxics programs.

In this scenario, the EPA feels that

there would be no value added in

increasing the reporting requirement to

a mandatory minimum of 6-months

because EPA has already determined the

frequency of reporting necessary to

assure compliance in each MACT

standard or in the General Provisions. In

addition, since section 112(l) is

voluntary, the 6-month reporting

provision imposes an increased burden

on sources whose States submit

equivalent State rules or programs for

EPA approval, and discourages States

from accepting delegation of the Federal

rule.

The EPA agrees that this requirement

is not necessary as a general

requirement and is revising section

63.93 by deleting § 63.93(b)(4)(iv).

C. Additional Language Regarding

Implementation of Chemical Safety and

Hazard Investigation Board

Requirement

Section 112(r)(7)(B)(iii) requires

coordination with the Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board (CSHIB)

on accident investigations. For

consistency, the subpart E rule (section

63.95 (b)(4)(i)) reiterates this

requirement. State and local agencies

believe this language should be deleted

because the CSHIB has not yet been

established. Continued inclusion of this

provision imposes a meaningless

requirement. It should be noted,

however, that the CSHIB may be

convened at some later date. The EPA

agrees that it is appropriate that the

requirement not take effect until the

CSHIB is convened. Consequently,

section 63.95(b)(4)(i) is being revised to

add the sentence, ‘‘This requirement

will not take effect until the Chemical

Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is

convened.’’

D. Approval of State Rules and

Programs Designed to Limit Potential to

Emit (PTE)

Currently, a number of States are

submitting, for EPA approval into the

State Implementation Plan, rules and

programs such as prohibitory rules and

federally enforceable State operating

permit programs (FESOP). There are a

few hazardous air pollutants (for

example methylene chloride) which are

not regulated by the criteria pollutant

program. Accordingly, when a State

seeks Federal approval of these rules

and programs, as they relate to such

pollutants, the EPA approval will be

given pursuant to section 112(l) of the

Act.

The current subpart E rule does not

expressly provide for approval of

programs designed to limit sources’

potential to emit hazardous air

pollutants. As explained in various

recent notices approving PTE programs

for section 112 purposes, EPA believes

the authority exists under section 112(l)

of the statute to approve PTE programs.

Promulgation of a rule expressly

providing for such approvals is

consistent with this statutory authority.

Thus, the EPA is today revising subpart

E to clarify that it may be used to

approve State PTE programs for section

112 purposes, in order to ensure that an

unintended ‘‘gap’’ does not exist for

pollutants such as methylene chloride.

The EPA notes that it is currently

reexamining its policy on PTE for the

section 112, title V, and new source

review programs. One possible outcome

of this reexamination is that PTE limits

will no longer have to be federally

enforceable. However, EPA believes that

today’s revision to subpart E is neutral

with respect to this issue. The revision

to subpart E merely clarifies that the

rule may be used as a pathway for

approval of State PTE programs. It does

not in and of itself establish a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 36297

requirement that limits on PTE must be

issued pursuant to a program approved

by EPA. In other words, today’s revision

clarifies that subpart E may be used to

approve a PTE program that a State

chooses to submit, without addressing

whether or why a State would make this

choice.

II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any 1 year.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. The UMRA generally

excludes from the definition of ‘‘Federal

intergovernmental mandate’’ duties that

arise from participation in a voluntary

Federal program. The EPA has also

determined that this rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any 1 year. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

III. Administrative

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated subpart E rulemaking were

submitted to and approved by the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB). A

copy of this Information Collection

Request (ICR) document (with an OMB

approval control number 2060–0264)

may be obtained from the Regulatory

Information Division (2136), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460,

or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s changes to the rulemaking

may slightly reduce the information

collection burden estimates made

previously. Since the expected

reduction will not be significant, the

ICR has not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

The subpart E rulemaking,

promulgated on November 26, 1993 was

considered a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866

(58 FR 5173, dated October 4, 1993) and

submitted to OMB for review.

According to the Executive Order, a

‘‘significant regulatory action is one that

is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, of

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Today’s action is not considered a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of this Executive Order.

The amendments issued today clarify

the rule and change certain

administrative requirements to increase

the flexibility to States in terms of

gaining approval of their respective

State programs. Therefore, the EPA

concludes these amendments do not

need to undergo OMB review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. This rule will not

increase, and is likely to reduce,

regulatory burdens on small businesses.

EPA has determined that this rule will

have no adverse effect on small

businesses.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted a report containing

this rule and other required information

to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

2. Section 63.90 is amended by

adding a sentence after the third

sentence and a sentence at the end of

the introductory text to read as follows:

§ 63.90 Program overview.

* * * In this process, States may seek

approval of a State mechanism for

receiving delegation of existing and

future unchanged Federal section 112

standards. * * * This subpart also

establishes procedures for the approval

of State rules or programs to establish

limitations on the potential to emit

pollutants listed in or pursuant to

section 112(b) of the Act.

* * * * *

2. Section 63.91 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 63.91 Criteria common to all approval

options.

(a) Approval process. To obtain

approval under this subpart of a rule or

program that is different from the

Federal rule, the criteria of this section

and the criteria of either § 63.92, § 63.93

or § 63.94 must be met. For approval of

State programs to implement and

enforce Federal section 112 rules as

promulgated without changes (except

for accidental release programs), only

the criteria of this section must be met.

This includes State requests for upfront

approval of their mechanism for taking

delegation of future unchanged Federal

section 112 standards and requirements

as well as approval to implement and

enforce unchanged Federal section 112

standards and requirements on a rule-by

rule basis. For approval of State rules or

programs to implement and enforce the

Federal accidental release prevention

program as promulgated without
36298 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

changes, the requirements of this

section and section § 63.95 must be met.

In the case of accidental release

prevention programs which differ from

the Federal accidental release

prevention program, the requirements of

this section, § 63.95, and either § 63.92

or § 63.93 must be met. The

Administrator may, under the authority

of Section 112(l) and this subpart, also

approve a State program designed to

establish limits on the potential to emit

of pollutants listed pursuant to Section

112(b) of the Clean Air Act. For a State’s

initial request for approval of any rule

or program under this subpart, and

except as otherwise specified under

§ 63.92, § 63.93, or § 63.94 for a State’s

subsequent requests for approval, the

approval process will be the following:

* * * * *

§ 63.93 [Amended]

3. Section 63.93 is amended by

removing paragraph (b)(4)(iv).

4. Section 63.95 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 63.95 Additional approval criteria for

accidental release prevention programs.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) * * *

(i) The Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board, particularly during

accident investigation. This requirement

will not take effect until the Chemical

Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is

convened; and

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–17323 Filed 7–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300414A; FRL–5381–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

Triphenyltin Hydroxide; Tolerance

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a final

tolerance rule for triphenyltin

hydroxide. All domestic registrations of

triphenyltin hydroxide for use on

carrots, peanuts and peanut hulls have

been cancelled and EPA is revoking

these tolerances.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This regulation is

effective August 9, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

docket number, [OPP–300414A], may be

submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900),

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460. A copy of any objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk should be identified by the docket

number and submitted to: Public

Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

person, bring copy of objections and

hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 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:oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

electronic objections and hearing

requests must be submitted as an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Copies of electronic objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format

or ASCII file format. All copies of

electronic objections and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [OPP–300414A]. 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: Jude

Andreasen, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Telephone: (703) 308–8016; e-mail:

andreasen.jude@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of March 6, 1996 (61

FR 8901)(FRL–5347–7), EPA issued a

proposed rule that gave notice that EPA

intended to revoke tolerances for

triphenyltin hydroxide on carrots,

peanuts and peanut hulls. There were

no comments or requests for referral to

an advisory committee received in

response to the proposed rule. The data

submitted with the proposal and other

relevant material have been evaluated

and discussed in the proposed rule.

Based on the data and information

considered, the Agency concludes that

the tolerances are not needed to protect

the public health. Therefore, the

tolerances are being removed as set forth

below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

to the regulation and may also request

a hearing on those objections.

Objections and hearing requests must be

filed with the Hearing Clerk, at the

address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A

copy of the objections and/or hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

should be submitted to the OPP docket

for this rulemaking. The objections

submitted must specify the provisions

of the regulation deemed objectionable

and the grounds for the objections (40

CFR 178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number OPP–

300414A (including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.