Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 42439

REGION VIII.—DELEGATION STATUS OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 1

Subpart CO MT ND 2 SD 2 UT 2 WY

*******

* Indicates approval of delegation of subpart to state.

1Authorities which may not be delegated include 40 CFR part 61.04(b), 61.12(d)(1), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), 61.112(c), 61.164(a)(2), 61.164(a)(3),

61.172(b)(2)(ii)(B), 61.172(b)(2)(ii)(C), 61.174(a)(2), 61.174(a)(3), 61.242–1(c)(2), 61.244, and all authorities listed as not delegable in each subpart under Delegation of Authority. 2 Indicates approval of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) with the exception of the radionuclide NESHAP subparts B, Q, R, T, W which were approved through section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act. 3 Delegation only for asbestos demolition, renovation, spraying, manufacturing, and fabricating operations, insulating materials, waste disposal

for demolition, renovation, spraying, manufacturing and fabricating operations, inactive waste disposal sites for manufacturing and fabricating operations, and operations that convert asbestos-containing waste material into nonasbestos (asbestos-free) material.

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671.

Subpart BB—Montana

2. Add a new and undesignated center

heading and § 62.6613 to subpart BB to

read as follows:

Fluoride Emissions From Existing

Phosphate Fertilizer Plants

§ 62.6613 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

The Montana Department of

Environmental Quality certified in a

letter dated February 14, 2001, that

there are no phosphate fertilizer plants

in Montana that meet the definition of

affected facility under any of the

subparts T, U, V, W or X. Additionally,

there are no phosphate fertilizer plants

in Montana that meet the definition of

affected facility under any of the

subparts T, U, V, W, or X, constructed

before October 22, 1974, and that have

not reconstructed or modified since

1974.

[FR Doc. 01–19872 Filed 8–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL–7031–6]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of

Operating Permits Program in

Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

fully approve the operating permits

program submitted by the State of

Washington. Washington’s operating

permits program was submitted in

response to the directive in the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments that

permitting authorities develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources

within the permitting authority’s

jurisdiction.

DATES: Effective September 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State of

Washington’s submittal and other

supporting information used in

developing this final full approval are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following location:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denise Baker, EPA, Region 10, Office of

Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 6th

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–

8087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments of 1990 required all state

and local permitting authorities to

develop operating permits programs that

meet certain Federal criteria.

Washington’s operating permits

program was submitted in response to

this directive. EPA granted interim

approval to Washington’s air operating

permit program on November 9, 1994

(59 FR 55813). EPA repromulgated final

interim approval on one issue, and a

notice of correction for Washington’s

operating permits program, on

December 8, 1995 (60 FR 62992).

After the state and local agencies that

implement the Washington operating

permits program revised their programs

to address the conditions of the interim

approval, EPA promulgated a proposal

to approve Washington’s title V

operating permits program on January 2,

2001, (66 FR at 84). At the same time,

because EPA viewed the proposal as a

noncontroversial action and did not

anticipate adverse public comment on

the proposal, EPA also published a

direct final rule approving the

Washington operating permits program

(66 FR 16).

EPA received one adverse public

comment on the proposal. Therefore,

EPA removed the direct final approval

on April 2, 2001 ( 66 FR 17512). After

carefully reviewing and considering the

issues raised by the commenter, EPA is

taking final action to give full approval

to the Washington operating permits

program.

II. Response to Comments

The comment received by EPA related

to Washington’s provisions for

insignificant emission units (IEUs). As

discussed in the direct final approval

notice, the Washington operating

permits program specifically exempts

IEUs from monitoring, recordkeeping,

reporting, and compliance certification

requirements except where such

requirements are specifically imposed

in the applicable requirement itself. See

WAC 173–401–530(2)(c) and (d); see

also 66 FR at 19. Because EPA does not

believe that part 70 exempts IEUs from

the monitoring, recordkeeping,

reporting, and compliance certification

requirements of 40 CFR 70.6, but

instead provides only a limited

exemption from permit application

requirements for IEUs, EPA initially

determined that Ecology must revise its

IEU regulations as a condition of full

approval. See 60 FR at 62993–62997

(final interim approval of Washington’s

operating permits program based on

exemption of IEUs from certain permit

content requirements); 60 FR 50166

(September 28, 1995) (proposed interim

approval of Washington’s operating

permits program on same basis).

As also discussed in the direct final

notice, however, the Western States

Petroleum Association (WSPA), together

with several other companies and the

42440 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1These terms are defined in the Agreement

among the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, local

governments in Pierce County, the State of

Washington, the United States, and certain private

property owners dated August 27, 1988.

Washington Department of Ecology,

challenged EPA’s determination that

Ecology must revise its IEU regulations

as a condition of full approval. See 66

FR at 19. On June 17, 1996, the Ninth

Circuit found in favor of the petitioners.

WSPA v. EPA, 87 F.3d 280 (9th Cir.

1996). The Ninth Circuit did not opine

on whether EPA’s position was

consistent with part 70. It did, however,

find that EPA had acted inconsistently

in its title V approvals, and had failed

to explain the departure from precedent

that the Court perceived in the

Washington interim approval. The Court

then remanded the matter to EPA,

instructing EPA to give full approval to

Washington’s IEU regulations. In light of

the Court’s order, EPA proposed in the

direct final notice to give full approval

to Washington’s operating permits

program even though Washington

continued to exempt IEUs from

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements. See 66 FR at 19. EPA

noted, however, that it continued to

believe that part 70 does not allow the

exemption of IEUs from the monitoring,

recordkeeping, reporting, and

compliance certification requirements of

40 CFR 70.6. See 66 FR at 19.

The commenter on EPA’s direct final

action objected to EPA giving full

approval to the Washington operating

permits program without first requiring

correction of the Washington’s

provisions for IEUs. The commenter

agreed with EPA that part 70 does not

allow the exemption of IEUs subject to

applicable requirements from the

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements of 40 CFR part 70. The

commenter further asserted, however,

that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

WSPA v. EPA does not compel EPA to

now grant full program approval to

Washington because the procedural

circumstances forming the basis for that

decision no longer exist. EPA assumes

the commenter is referring to EPA’s

statement in the direct final notice that,

with respect to three of the states

identified by the Ninth Circuit, EPA has

determined that the states’ regulations

were not in fact inconsistent with EPA’s

position on IEUs and, in the case of the

five other states identified by the Ninth

Circuit, EPA has been working with

these permitting authorities to ensure

changes are made to their IEU

provisions. See 66 FR at 19.

After carefully reviewing the Ninth

Circuit’s order, EPA continues to believe

that it must give full approval to

Washington’s operating permits

program even though Washington’s

regulations exempt IEUs from

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements because the Court ordered

EPA to do so. The Court subsequently

denied EPA’s request for rehearing on

the matter. WSPA v. EPA, No. 95–70034

(9th Cir. October 17, 1996).

As stated in the direct final notice,

however, EPA maintains its position

that part 70 does not allow the

exemption of IEUs subject to generally

applicable requirements from the

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements of 40 CFR 70.6. See 66 FR

at 19. EPA will therefore be addressing

this deficiency in Washington’s IEU

regulations in another context. On

December 11, 2000 (65 FR 77376), EPA

published a Federal Register notice

notifying the public of the opportunity

to submit comments identifying any

programmatic or implementation

deficiencies in state title V programs

that had received interim or full

approval. In that notice, EPA committed

to respond to the merits of any such

claims of deficiency on or before

December 1, 2001, for those states, such

as Washington, that have received

interim approval and on or before April

1, 2002, for states that have received full

approval. In response to that December

11, 2000, Federal Register notice, a

commenter identified Washington’s IEU

regulations as deficient because

Washington exempts IEUs subject to

generally applicable requirements from

monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting,

and compliance certification

requirements. Therefore, if the

deficiencies in Washington’s IEU

regulations are not promptly addressed,

EPA will respond to the deficiencies in

Washington’s IEU regulations and those

of any other states identified by the

WSPA Court that have not already been

addressed in accordance with the time

frames set forth in the December 11,

2000, Federal Register notice.

III. Final Action

EPA is granting full approval of the

State of Washington’s operating permits

program implemented by Ecology,

EFSEC, and the seven local air

authorities in Washington. Except with

respect to non-trust lands within the

1873 Survey Area of the Puyallup

Reservation,1 this approval does not

extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’, as defined

in 18 U.S.C. 151. See 64 FR 8247, 8250–

8251 (February 19, 1999); 59 FR at

55815, 55818; 59 FR 42552, 42554

(August 18, 1994).

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final

approval is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the

Administrator certifies that this final

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it

merely approves state law as meeting

federal requirements and imposes no

additional requirements beyond those

imposed by state law. This rule does not

contain any unfunded mandates and

does not significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4) because it approves

pre-existing requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duties beyond that required

by state law. This rule also does not

have tribal implications because it will

not have a substantial direct effect on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175,

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000). This rule

also does not have Federalism

implications because it will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This

rule merely approves existing

requirements under state law, and does

not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the State and

the Federal government established in

the Clean Air Act. This final approval

also is not subject to Executive Order

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001)), because it is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. This action will not impose any

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 42441

collection of information subject to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than

those previously approved and assigned

OMB control number 2060–0243. For

additional information concerning these

requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

a person is not required to respond to,

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

In reviewing State operating permit

programs submitted pursuant to title V

of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve

State programs provided that they meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

and EPA’s regulations codified at 40

CFR part 70. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a State operating permit

program for failure to use VCS. It would

thus be inconsistent with applicable law

for EPA, when it reviews an operating

permit program , to use VCS in place of

a State program that otherwise satisfies

the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Thus, the requirements of section 12(d)

of the National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective September 12, 2001.

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 October 12, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

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: July 31, 2001.

Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

40 CFR part 70, chapter I, 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. In appendix A to part 70, the entry

for Washington is amended by revising

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),

(h), and (i) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Washington

(a) Department of Ecology (Ecology):

submitted on November 1, 1993; interim

approval effective on December 9, 1994;

revisions submitted on June 5, 1996, October

3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May 24, 1999;

full approval effective on September 12,

2001.

(b) Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council

(EFSEC): submitted on November 1, 1993;

interim approval effective on December 9,

1994; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on

September 12, 2001.

(c) Benton County Clean Air Authority

(BCCAA): submitted on November 1, 1993;

interim approval effective on December 9,

1994; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on

September 12, 2001.

(d) Northwest Air Pollution Authority

(NWAPA): submitted on November 1, 1993;

interim approval effective on December 9,

1994; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on

September 12, 2001.

(e) Olympic Air Pollution Control

Authority (OAPCA): submitted on November

1, 1993; interim approval effective on

December 9, 1994; revisions submitted on

June 5, 1996, October 3, 1996, August 25,

1998, and May 24, 1999; full approval

effective on September 12, 2001.

(f) Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

(PSCAA): submitted on November 1, 1993;

interim approval effective on December 9,

1994; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on

September 12, 2001.

(g) Spokane County Air Pollution Control

Authority (SCAPCA): submitted on

November 1, 1993; interim approval effective

on December 9, 1994; revisions submitted on

June 5, 1996, October 3, 1996, August 25,

1998, and May 24, 1999; full approval

effective on September 12, 2001.

(h) Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA):

submitted on November 1, 1993; interim

approval effective on December 9, 1994;

revisions submitted on June 5, 1996, October

3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May 24, 1999;

full approval effective on September 12,

2001.

(i) Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority

(YRCAA): submitted on November 1, 1993;

interim approval effective on December 9,

1994; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on

September 12, 2001.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–20217 Filed 8–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 258

[FRL–7033–4]

RIN 2090–AA18

Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for

Yolo County Landfill, Davis, Yolo

County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating today a

site-specific rule proposed on May 9,

2001 to implement a project under the

Project XL program, an EPA initiative to

allow regulated entities to achieve better

environmental results at decreased

costs. Today’s rule provides site-specific

regulatory flexibility under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

as amended, for the Yolo County

Landfill, Davis, Yolo County, California.

The terms of the XL project are defined

in a Final Project Agreement (FPA)

signed by Yolo County, California

Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management

District, the Solid Waste Association of

North America, Institute for

Environmental Management, and EPA

on September 14, 2000. Today’s rule is

applicable only to the Yolo County

Central Landfill, to facilitate

implementation of the XL project to use

certain bioreactor techniques at its

municipal solid waste landfill

(MSWLF), specifically the addition of

bulk or non-containerized liquid wastes