# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 60 Fed. Reg. 38726 1995

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jul 11 16:44:11 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### 38726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Id.

I. Programs to Demolish or Renovate Residential Buildings

Since the publication ofthe 1990 revisions to the asbestos NESHAP, certain questions have arisen regarding whether demolitions or renovations of residential homes that are demolished

orrenovated by municipalities for

reasons ofpublic health, welfare or safety ("nuisance abatement demolitions") are covered by the asbestos NESHAP.2 Several municipalities have stated that they believe such demolitions or renovations
tobe excluded from the NESHAP under theresidential building exemption. Municipalities have also stated that EPA officials have been inconsistent in their determinations ofthis issue. In particular, officials from several municipalities in Florida have asked EPA to issue a notice clarifying EPA's interpretation ofthe asbestos NESHAP with regard to this issue. In addition, the House ofRepresentatives Report accompanying H.R. 4624 (House Report 103-555, reported by the House Appropriations Committee), also noted these allegedly inconsistent interpretations and directed EPA to issue a notice ofclarification that a nuisance abatement demolition or renovation does not subject an otherwise exempt structure to the asbestos NESHAP regulations. In an effort to clarify this issue for the regulated community, EPA is presenting this notice giving its interpretation of the NESHAP with regard to this issue.

IV. EPA Interpretation

EPA believes that individual small residential buildings that are demolished orrenovated are not covered by the asbestos NESHAP. This is true whether the demolition or renovation is performed by agents ofthe

owner ofthe property or whether the demolition orrenovation is performed by agents ofthe municipality. EPA believes that the residential building exemption applies equally to an individual small residential building regardless ofwhether a municipality is

an "owner or operator" for the purposes ofthe demolition or renovation. EPA believes that the exemption is based on the type ofbuilding being demolished

orrenovated and the type ofdemolition

orrenovation project that is being

2Demolition ofsuch homes typically occur after

a municipality orders a building condemned for public health or safety reasons (e.g. condemnation ofa building that is abandoned and/or in danger of collapse). This type of demolition does not include demolitions ofbuildings for the purpose ofbuilding public facilities like highways or sports arenas. undertaken, not the entity performing or controlling the demolition or renovation.

However, EPA believes thatthe residential building exemption does not apply where multiple (more than one) small residential buildings onthe samb site 3 are demolished or renovated by the

same owner or operator as part of the

same project or where a single residential building is demolished or renovated as part ofa larger project that includes demolition or renovation of non-residential buildings. The definition offacility specifically includes "any residential structure, installation orbuilding" but excludes only "residential buildingshaving four

or fewer dwelling units" [emphasis added). Id.at 48415. Specifically not excluded from the definition offacility

were residential installations. EPA believes that the fact that the residential building exemption .islimited to residential buildings,and does not include residential installations, shows that the residential building exemption

was not designed to exempt from the NESHAP demolitions orrenovations of multiple buildings at a single site by the

same owner or operator. Moreover, to the extent the regulations are ambiguous, EPA believes the language ofthe preamble to the 1990 regulations quoted above makes clear that the Agency interpreted the residential building exemption not to include the demolition ofa group ofresidential buildings on the same site under the control ofthe same owner or operator. The preamble also notes that demolitions ofresidential buildings as a part oflarger demolition projects (e.g. construction of a shopping mall) are not excluded from the NESHAP. EPA believes that this interpretation is consistent with the original purpose of the residential building exemption,

3The term "site" is not defined in the regulations and EPA does not intend to provide any determination ofthe boundaries ofa "site" in today's clarification. However, to provide guidance, EPA notes that a "site" should be a relatively compact area.In EPA's view, anentire municipality, or even a neighborhood in a municipality, should not be considered a single site. Where an area is made upofmultiple parcels of land owned and operated by various parties, EPA believes thatparcels on the same cityblock may be considered as a single site. (Where a site cannot be easilydefined as a cityblock, the site should be

a comparably compact site. In any event, the local government should use common sensewhen applying thisguide.) Obviously, EPA believes that ifademolition project involves the demolition of several contiguous city blocks,the entire area could be considered a site. However, EPA believes that demolition oftwoindividual residences separated by several cityblocks should not be considered a demolition ona single site. In EPA's view, thearea ofa sitemay be larger where the areais ownedand operated as a unitary area by a single owner/ operator (e.g.a shopping mall or amusement park). which was to exempt demolitions or renovations involving small amounts of asbestos. EPA does notbelieve the residential building exemption was designed to exempt larger demolitions

or renovations on a particular site, even where small residential buildings are involved. 4

While this notice clarifies EPA's belief that certain demolitions or renovations performed by municipalities are not subject to the asbestos NESHAP, EPA
encourages municipalities (and other

owners ind operators) to perform such demolitions orrenovations in amanner that provides appropriate consideration for any potential adverse health impacts
to the public. This notice applies only
to the Federal asbestos NESHAP. Other Federal, State or local agency regulations may apply.

Dated: July 17, 1995. Richard Wilson, ActingAssistant AdministratorforAir and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 95-18620 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6660-OP

40 CFR Part 81 [UT22-1-6925a; FRL-6265-6]
Designation ofArea forAir Quality Planning Purposes; Utah; Designation of Ogden City PMio Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is revising the PM~o (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to anominal 10 micrometers) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) designation for Ogden City, a portion ofWeber County, Utah. Previously, consistent with section 107(d)(3)(A) of theAct, EPA notified the Governor ofUtah that Weber County, Utah should be redesignated from unclassifiable to nonattainment for PM1o. The redesignation is based upon violations ofthe PM1o NAAQS which were monitored between January 1991 and January 1993. DATES: This final rule will become effective on September 26, 1995 unlesd adverse comments are received by August 28,1995. Ifthe effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

4EPA notes that 40 CFR 61.19 forbids owners and operators from attempting to circumvent any NESHAPs by carrying out an operation in a piecemeal fashion to avoid coverage by a standard thatapplies only tooperations larger thana specified size.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 38726 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

ADDRESSES: Comments 

### should be addressed to:Douglas M. Skie, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VIII, at the address listed below. Information supporting this action can be found at the following location: EPA Region VIII, Air Pr6grams Branch, 999 18th Street, 3rd Floor, South Terrace, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466.

The information may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., on weekdays, except for legalholidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

### Hanley, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 293-1760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### A. General

The EPA is authorized to initiate redesignation ofareas (orportions thereof) asnonattainment for PM,0 

### pursuant to section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act,

on the basis ofair quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.

Following the process outlined in section 107(d)(3), on July 14, 1994, the Administrator ofEPA Region VIII requested that the Governor ofUtah recommend a PMo nonattainment designation for Weber County based upon six exceedances ofthe 24-hour PMo NAAQS recordedbetween January 1991 and January 1993, ranging from 156 to 182 hg/m3. Under section 107(d)(3)(B), the Governor ofUtah was required to submit to EPA the designation he considered appropriate for Weber County within 120 days after EPA's notification. The Governor submitted a response recommending redesignation ofOgden City, Utah to nonattainment on January 9, 1995. Ogden City is within Weber County, but its boundaries are notcoextensive with those ofWeber County. Section 107(d)(1)(A) sets out definitions ofnonattainment, attainment, and unclassifiable. A nonattainment area is defined as any
area that does notmeet (orthat significantly contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary orsecondary ambient air quality standard forPM10


### . 1 

### Further, section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) provides thata nonattainment area shall consist

IThe EPA has construed the definition of nonattainment area to require some material Qr ignificant contribution to a violation in a nearby

area. The Agency believes it is reasonable to conclude that something greater than a molecular. impact is required. 

### ofthat area violating the PMo NAAQS

orcontributing significantly to violations in a nearby area. Generally, thePM, 0

### nonattainment area boundaries

are presumed tobe, as appropriate, the county, township, or municipal subdivision inwhich the ambient particulate monitorrecording the PMo violations is located. EPAhas presumed that this would include both the area violating the PMI 0 

### NAAQS and any area significantly contributing to the. violations. However, a State may demonstrate that a boundary other than the countyperimeter ormunicipal boundary may be more appropriate. Thus, in determiningthe appropriate boundaries forthe nonattainment area, EPAhas considered notonly the area where the violations ofthe PM,0 

### NAAQS are occurring, butnearby areas which significantly contribute to such violations. Based on the information provided by the Governor, including monitoring data, EPA believes that the nonattainment boundaries submitted by the Governor are appropriate atthis time.

Note: The boundaries ofthe nonattainment


### areamaybe adjusted as aresult ofanalyses made during the SIP development process. 

### B. Background for PMo

On July 1,1987, the EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter (52 FR 24634), replacing total suspended particulates as the indicator for particulate matter with a new indicator called PMo, that includes only those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. At the same time, EPA set forth the regulations for implementing the revised particulate matter standards and announced EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) development policy, elaborating PMocontrol strategies necessary to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe PMo NAAQS (seegenerally 52 FR 24672). The EPA adopted aPMo SIP development policy dividing all areas ofthe country into three categories based upon their probability ofviolating the new NAAQS: (1)Areas with a strong likelihood ofviolating the new PM,0 

### NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP adjustment were placed in Group I;(2)

areas that might well have been attaining the PMmo NAAQS and whose existing SIPs most likely needed less adjustment wereplaced in Group II; and (3)areas with a strong likelihood of attaining the PMIo NAAQS and, therefore, needing adjustments only to their preconstruction review program and monitoring network were placed in Group III (52 FR 24672, 24679-24682). At that time,Ogden City was categorized as a Group III area.

Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe Act, areas previously identified as Group Iand other areas which had monitored violations ofthe PMo NAAQS prior toJanuary 1, 1989, were, by operation oflaw upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments, designated nonattainment for PMo.All other areas ofthe Country, such asthe Ogden City
area, were similarly designated unclassifiable forPMo (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(iii) ofthe Act; 40 CFR 81.327 (1992) as amended by 57FR 56762, 56772 (Nov. 30, 1992) (PMjo designations for Utah).) After EPA adopted the PMo NAAQS, EPA identified and listed the Group I and Group IIareas in a Federal Register document published on August 7, 1987, (52 FR 29383). Inthat document, EPA indicated that Group III areas consisted ofthat portion ofa State not placed in Group IorII.Descriptions ofthe areas identified as Group Iand IIareas were later clarified in a FederalRegister document dated October 31, 1990 (55 FR45799). That notice also identified Group IIareas which violated the standards prior to January 1, 1989. EPA announced all areas which were designated nonattainment by operation oflaw for PMo upon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments in a Federal Register document dated March 15, 1991 (56 FR 

### 11101). In addition, EPAhas published

a follow-up document correcting the boundaries and designations ofsome of the areas in light ofcomments received addressing the March 1991 document (see 56FR 37654 (August8, 1991).) Formal codification in40 CFR part 81 ofthose areas designated nonattainment for PM,0

### by operation of lawupon enactment was announced in aFederal Register document dated November 6, 1991, (56 FR56694). The November 6, 1991 Federal Register document was subsequently amended on November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56762).

II. Final Action

As noted above, pursuant to section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act, EPA is authorized to initiate the redesignation ofareas as nonattainment for PMo. Based on six exceedances ofthe 24-hr PMlo NAAQS recorded between January 1991 and January 1993, EPA notified the Governor ofUtah on July 14, 1994, that 

### the airquality designation for Weber County should berevised from unclassifiable to nonattainment for PM,o (see40 CFR 50.6.). In response to EPA's July 14, 1994; letter, 8PA received a letter dated January 9, 1995, from the Governor ofUtah requesting that Ogden City, in a portion of.Weber County, 

### 38727

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 38727 1995

### 38728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Utah, be redesignated as nonattainment forPM1

### o.EPA is taking final action to redesignate Ogden City, Utah to nonattainment for PMo.

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates noadverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, EPA is proposing toredesignate the area to nonattainment should adverse or critical comments be filed. Under the procedures established inthe May 10, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 24054), 

### this action will be effective September 26, 1995 unless, by August 28, 1995, adverse or critical comments are received.

Ifsuch comments are received, this action will be withdrawn before the effective dateby publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent finalrule based on this action serving as a proposed rule.EPA will notinstitute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time. Ifno such comments are received, the public is advised that this action willbe effective on September 26, 1995.
I. Significance ofThis Action for Ogden City, Utah

Ogden Cityis being redesignated as a moderate PM1

### ononattainment area. Utah must submit an implementation plan to EPAfor this area within 18 months after the effective date ofthis nonattainment redesignation. The plan must meet the requirements ofPart D, Title Iofthe Act (see section 189(a)(2)(B) oftheAct).

The Clean AirAct provides that the plan forthe area must contain, among other things,the following requirements:

1. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) thatthe plan will provide for attainment ofthe PM1

### o NAAQS as expeditiously aspracticable, but nolater than the end ofthe sixth calendar year after the area's designation as nonattainment, or a demonstration that attainment by such date is impracticable;

2. Provisions to ensure that reasonably available control measures (includingreasonably available control technology) are implemented within 4 years ofthe redesignation;

3. A permit program meeting the requirements of section 173 governing the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources ofPMo; and 4. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every threeyears until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as defined in section 171(1), toward timely attainment.

See. e.g,sections 188(c), 189(a), 189(c) and 172(c) ofthe Act. EPA has issued detailed guidance on the statutory requirements applicable to moderate PM10

### nonattainment areas. (see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).)

In taking final action to redesignate Ogden City as nonattainment, EPA is also establishing a date by which the State must submit the contingency

measures required by section 172(c)(9) 

### ofthe Act (see 57 FR 13498 

### at 13510- 13512 and 13543-13544). Section 172(b) 

### ofthe Actprovides that such date shall not be later than 3 years from the date ofthe nonattainment redesignation. The due date established for submittal ofthe contingency measures is 18 months from thisredesignation. This due date coincides with the due date forthe rest ofthe moderate PM10 

### nonattainment

area SIP.
VI. OtherRegulatory Requirements

A. RegulatoryFlexibility Act Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq., EPA must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or finalrule on small entities. 5U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will nothave a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

Redesignation ofan area to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3) ofthe Act does notimpose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the planning status ofa geographical

area and does not initself,impose any regulatory requirements on sources. To the extentthat the State must adopt new regulations based on the area's nonattainment status; EPA will review the effect ofthose actions on small entities at the time the State submits those regulations. Icertify that approval ofthe redesignation request will not affect a substantial number ofsmall entities.

B. UnfundedMandates

Title II ofthe 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 ofthe UMRA, EPA generally must prepare awritten statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, forproposed 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 one year. When a written
statement is needed for an EPA rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to'identify and consider a reasonable number ofregulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule. The provisions ofsection 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative ifthe Administrator publishes withthe final rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may significantly oruniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 ofthe UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected smallgovernments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development ofEPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with theregulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one year.' Redesignation ofan area to nonattainment under section 107(d)(3) ofthe Clean Air Act affects the air quality planning status ofan area and does not, in itself,impose any regulatory requirements on sources and, therefore, does not impose any mandates or costs on the private sector. Redesignation ofan area to nonattainment, however, does trigger an obligation ofthe State to develop, adopt and submit to EPA certain State Implementation Plan revisions under part D oftitle I ofthe Clean Air Act. EPA has determined thatthe cost to the State government ofdeveloping, adopting and submitting any necessary State Implementation Plan revisions will not exceed $100 million. Thus, today's rule

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 38728 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

isnot subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of theUMRA. EPA has determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because only the State government has to take any action as a result oftoday's rule.

C.Petition Language
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Act, petitions for judicial review ofthis action mustbe filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by September 26, 1995. Filing a petition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the 

### purposes ofjudicial review nordoes it extend the time within which apetition forjudicial 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 itsrequirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Executive Order 12866

The OMB has exempted this action from the requirements ofSection 6 of Executive Order 12866.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: July 19, 1995. Jack McGraw, ActingRegionalAdministrator.

40 CFRpart 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--:AMENDED]

1. The authority citation forpart 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. In §81.345 the table for Utah-PM10 Nonattainment Areas is amended by adding an entry forWeber County to read as follows:
§81.345 Utah.



### Utah-PM-10 Nonattainment Areas CiassificaDesignated area Designation date Designation type Classification date tinyp

Ogden Area Weber County (part) September 26, 1995

...................... Nonattainment

.... September 26, 1995

...................... Moderate.

city of Ogden.

[FR Doc. 95-18520 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am BILUNG COOE 6560-60-P

40 CFR Part82 [FRL-5266-41

Protection of Strtospheric Ozone; Acceptable Substitutesforthe SignificantNew Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice ofacceptability.

SUMMARY: This notice expands the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 ofthe amended Clean Air Act of 1990, which requires EPA to evaluate substitutes for the ODSs, and regulate the use of substitutes where other alternatives exist that reduce overall risk to human health and the environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists ofacceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each ofthe major industrial use sectors.

On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated its plan for administering the SNAP
program, and issued decisions on the acceptabiliy and unacceptability ofa number of substitutes (59 FR 13044). In today's Notice, EPA issues decisions on the acceptability ofsubstitutes not previously reviewed by the Agency. The intended effect of this action is to expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds. To arrive at determinations on the acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media sector end-use screening
assessment ofrisks to human health and the environment. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 1995. ADDRESSES: Information relevant to this notice is contained in AirDocket A-91- 42, Central Docket Section, South Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. Telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket may be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged forphotocopying. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Levy at (202) 233-9727 or fax (202) 233-9577, U.S. EPA, Stratospheric Protection Division, 401 M Street SW., Mail Code 6205J, Washington, D.C. 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### I.Section 612 Program

A. Statutory Requirements B.Regulatory History II.

Listing ofAcceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B.Fire Suppression andExplosion

Protection C.Medical Sterilants Ill. Substitutes Pending Review IV. Additional Information Appendix A: Summary of Acceptable and Pending Decisions
Section 612 Program StatutoryRequirements

Section 612 ofthe Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop aprogram for evaluating alternatives to ozonedepleting substances. EPA is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions ofsection 612 are:

* Rulemaing-Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

* ListingofUnacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes-Section612(c) also requires EPA to publish a list ofthe substitutes unacceptable for specific

uses. EPA must publish a corresponding listof acceptable alternatives for specific uses. 

### 38729

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 38729 1995