40934 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

disclosure of any exculpatory material

the Secretary has in her possession.

3. Pre-hearing Conference

The proposed rule provides that the

pre-hearing conference be conducted as

soon as practicable after the employer

has received the narrative and

worksheet under the provisions of Rule

206. One commentator suggested that

the pre-hearing conference be held only

after the employer has also received any

photographs or videotapes so that the

employer has the benefit of all

mandatory disclosure before the prehearing conference. The commentator

expressed concern that allowing the prehearing conference to go forward

without the employer’s prior access to

any photographs or videotapes places

the employer in an unfair position.

Because Rule 207 requires the parties to

set forth an agreed statement of issues

and facts, witnesses and exhibits,

defenses, motions, and any other

pertinent matter including affirmative

defenses at the pre-hearing conference,

the commentator noted that an

employer may not be properly prepared

to do so without the photographs and

videotapes.

We acknowledge the interest in

having an employer fully prepared for

the pre-hearing conference, and we note

that under the proposed rule, there is no

requirement that the Judge hold the prehearing conference before the employer

receives any photographs or videotapes.

We expect that generally the pre-hearing

conference will be scheduled after the

employer is in receipt of any

photographs and videotapes. However,

the Commission has decided to adopt

the proposed rule which allows the

Judge to exercise his or her discretion to

conduct the pre-hearing conference at

any time after the employer is in receipt

of the narrative and the worksheet.

4. Hearing

One of the objectives of the E–Z Trial

process is to expeditiously adjudicate

less complex cases. As a result, the

Commission believes that cases

proceeding under the E–Z Trial process

should be exempt from Rule 60, which

requires that the parties be given notice

of the time, place, and nature of the

hearing at least thirty days in advance

of the hearing. Because the cases

designated for E–Z Trial contain

relatively few citation items and do not

involve complex matters of fact or law,

the Commission believes that the parties

will not be harmed by allowing the

Judge to schedule the hearing with less

than 30 days notice. Accordingly, the

Commission has revised Rule 209 to

reflect the exemption from Rule 60.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2200

Administrative practice and

procedure, Hearing and appeal

procedures.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission amends

Title 29, Chapter XX, Part 2200, Subpart

M of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 2200—RULES OF PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 2200

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g).

2. Section 2200.201 is amended by

removing paragraph (b) and the

designation for paragraph (a).

3. Section 2200.202 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 2200.202 Eligibility for E–Z Trial.

(a) Those cases selected for E–Z Trial

will be those that do not involve

complex issues of law or fact. Cases

appropriate for E–Z Trial would

generally include those with one or

more of the following characteristics:

(1) Relatively few citation items,

(2) An aggregate proposed penalty of

not more than $10,000,

(3) No allegation of willfulness or a

repeat violation,

(4) Not involving a fatality,

(5) A hearing that is expected to take

less than two days, or

(6) A small employer whether

appearing pro se or represented by

counsel.

(b) Those cases with an aggregate

proposed penalty of more than $10,000,

but not more than $20,000, if otherwise

appropriate, may be selected for E–Z

Trial at the discretion of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge.

4. Section 2200.206(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 2200.206 Disclosure of information.

(a) Disclosure to employer. (1) Within

12 working days after a case is

designated for E–Z Trial, the Secretary

shall provide the employer, free of

charge, copies of the narrative (Form

OSHA 1–A) and the worksheet (Form

OSHA 1–B), or their equivalents.

(2) Within 30 calendar days after a

case is designated for E–Z Trial, the

Secretary shall provide the employer

with reproductions of any photographs

or videotapes that the Secretary

anticipates using at the hearing.

(3) Within 30 calendar days after a

case is designated for E–Z Trial, the

Secretary shall provide to the employer

any exculpatory evidence in the

Secretary’s possession.

(4) The Judge shall act expeditiously

on any claim by the employer that the

Secretary improperly withheld or

redacted any portion of the documents,

photographs, or videotapes on the

grounds of confidentiality or privilege.

* * * * *

5. Section 2200.207(a) is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as

follows:

§ 2200.207 Pre-hearing conferences.

(a) When held. As early as practicable

after the employer has received the

documents set forth in § 2200.206(a)(1),

the presiding Judge will order and

conduct a pre-hearing conference.* * *

* * * * *

6. Section 2200.209(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 2200.209 Hearing.

(a) Procedures. As soon as practicable

after the conclusion of the pre-hearing

conference, the Judge will hold a

hearing on any issue that remains in

dispute. The hearing will be in

accordance with subpart E of these

rules, except for § 2200.60, 2200.73, and

2200.74 which will not apply.

* * * * *

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Earl R. Ohman, Jr.,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–20130 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 173–0044a; FRL–5867–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District and Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern negative declarations

from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District

(SMAQMD) and the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District

(SBCAPCD). The SMAQMD submitted

negative declarations for two source

categories that emit volatile organic

compounds (VOC): Plastic Parts
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 40935

1 Sacramento Metropolitan Area retained its

designation of nonattainment and was classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The Sacramento

Metropolitan Area was reclassified from serious to

severe on June 1, 1995. See 60 FR 20237 (April 25,

1995).

2The Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc Area

retained its designation of nonattainment and was

classified by operation of law pursuant to sections

107 (d) and 181 (a) upon the date of enactment of

the CAA. See 55 FR (November 6, 1991).

3 EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

4SMAQMD has submitted rules for four source

categories: Aerospace, Clean Up Solvents, Offset

Lithography, and Volatile Organic Liquid Storage

Tanks. SMAQMD has developed rules for Autobody

Refinishing and Wood Furniture and is in the

Continued

Coating: Business Machines and Plastic

Parts Coating: Other. The SBCAPCD

submitted negative declarations for six

source categories that emit VOC:

Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines, Plastic

Parts Coating: Other, Industrial Cleaning

Solvents, Offset Lithography, and

Shipbuilding Coatings. The SMAQMD

and the SBCAPCD have certified that

these source categories are not present

in their respective Districts and this

information is being added to the

federally approved State

Implementation Plan. The intended

effect of approving these negative

declarations is to meet the requirements

of the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is

finalizing the approval of these

revisions into the California SIP under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This action is effective on

September 29, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

September 2, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Julie Rose at the Region IX

office listed below. Copies of the

submitted negative declarations are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office and also at the

following locations during normal

business hours.

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Air Docket (6102), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 ‘‘M’’ Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 92123–1095

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, 8411 Jackson

Road, Sacramento, CA 95826

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Castilian Drive, B–

23, Goleta, CA 93117

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

A. Rose, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The revisions being approved as

additional information for the California

SIP include negative declarations from

the SMAQMD regarding two source

categories: Plastic Parts Coating:

Business Machines and Plastic Parts

Coating: Other and negative declarations

from SBCAPCD regarding six source

categories: Industrial Wastewater,

Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machines, Plastic Parts Coating: Other,

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset

Lithography, and Shipbuilding

Coatings. The negative declarations

were submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on June

6, 1996 for SMAQMD and July 12, 1996

for SBCAPCD.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or

pre-amended Act), that included the

SMAQMD within the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area (SMA) and the

SBCAPCD within the Santa BarbaraSanta Maria-Lompoc Area (SBSMLA).

43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. Because

these areas were unable to meet the

statutory attainment date of December

31, 1982, California requested under

section 172 (a)(2), and EPA approved,

an extension of the attainment date to

December 31, 1987. (40 CFR 52.222). On

May 26, 1988, EPA notified the

Governor of California, pursuant to

section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that

the above districts’ portions of the

California SIP were inadequate to attain

and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

In amended section 182(b)(2) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that States must develop

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for sources ‘‘covered by a

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)

document issued by the Administrator

between November 15, 1990 and the

date of attainment.’’ On April 28, 1992,

in the Federal Register, EPA published

a CTG document which indicated EPA’s

intention to issue CTGs for eleven

source categories and EPA’s

requirement to prepare CTGs for two

additional source categories within the

same timeframe. This CTG document

established time tables for the submittal

of a list of applicable sources and the

submittal of RACT rules for those major

sources for which EPA had not issued

a CTG document by November 15, 1993.

The CTG specified that states were

required to submit RACT rules by

November 15, 1994 for those categories

for which EPA had not issued a CTG

document by November 15, 1993.

Section 182(b)(2) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as moderate or above as of the

date of enactment. The SMA is

classified as severe; 1 therefore, SMA

was subject to the post-enactment CTG

requirement and the November 15, 1994

deadline. The SBSMLA is classified as

moderate; 2 therefore, SBSMLA was also

subject to the post-enactment CTG

requirements and the November 15,

1994 deadline. For source categories not

represented within the portions of the

SMA and the SBSMLA designated

nonattainment for ozone, EPA requires

the submission of a negative declaration

certifying that those sources are not

present.

The SMAQMD negative declarations

were adopted on May 2, 1996 and

submitted by the State of California on

June 6, 1996. The SBCAPCD negative

declarations were adopted on May 16,

1996 and submitted by the State of

California on July 12, 1996. The

SMAQMD negative declarations were

found to be complete on June 27, 1996

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 3 and are being finalized for

approval into the SIP as additional

information. The SMAQMD negative

declarations were found to be complete

on January 18, 1997 pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria and are being

finalized for approval into the SIP as

additional information.

This document addresses EPA’s

direct-final action for the SMAQMD

negative declarations for Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines and Plastic

Parts Coating: Other. The submitted

negative declarations represent two of

the thirteen source categories listed in

EPA’s CTG document.4 The submitted
40936 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

process of developing rules for SOCMI Distillation,

Reactors, and Batch Processing. Negative

declarations will be developed for the two

remaining categories.

5SBCAPCD has submitted rules for four source

categories: Aerospace, Autobody Refinishing,

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, and Wood

Furniture. SBCAPCD is developing negative

declarations for the remaining three source

categories.

negative declarations certify that there

are no VOC sources in these source

categories located inside SMAQMD’s

portion of the SMA. VOCs contribute to

the production of ground level ozone

and smog. These negative declarations

were adopted as part of SMAQMD’s

effort to meet the requirements of

section 182(b)(2) of the CAA.

This document also addresses EPA’s

direct-final action for the SBCAPCD

negative declarations for: (1) Industrial

Wastewater, (2) Plastic Parts Coating:

Business Machines, (3) Plastic Parts

Coating: Other, (4) Industrial Cleaning

Solvents, (5) Offset Lithography, and (6)

Shipbuilding Coatings. The submitted

negative declarations represent six of

the thirteen source categories listed in

EPA’s CTG document.5 The submitted

negative declarations certify that there

are no VOC sources in these source

categories located inside the SBCAPCD.

VOCs contribute to the production of

ground level ozone and smog. These

negative declarations were adopted as

part of SBCAPCD’s effort to meet the

requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the

CAA.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

negative declaration, EPA must evaluate

the declarations for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 of

the CAA and 40 CFR part 51

(Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

An analysis of SMAQMD’s emission

inventory revealed that there are no

sources of VOC emissions from Plastic

Parts Coating: Business Machines and

Plastic Parts Coating: Other. SMAQMD’s

review of their permit files also

indicated that these source categories do

not exist in the SMAQMD. In a

document adopted on May 2, 1996,

SMAQMD certified that SMAQMD does

not have any major stationary sources in

these source categories located within

the federal ozone nonattainment

planning area.

An analysis of SBCAPCD’s emission

inventory revealed that there are no

sources of VOC emissions from

Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines, Plastic

Parts Coating: Other, Industrial Cleaning

Solvents, Offset Lithography, and

Shipbuilding Coatings. SBCAPCD’s

review of their permit files also

indicated that these source categories do

not exist in the SBCAPCD. In a

document adopted on May 16, 1996,

SBCAPCD certified that SBCAPCD does

not have any major stationary sources in

these source categories located within

the federal ozone nonattainment

planning area.

EPA has evaluated these negative

declarations and has determined that

they are consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy.

SMAQMD’s negative declarations for

Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machines and Plastic Parts Coating:

Other and SBCAPCD’s negative

declarations for Industrial Wastewater,

Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machines, Plastic Parts Coating: Other,

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset

Lithography, and Shipbuilding Coatings

are being approved under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and Part

D.

EPA is publishing this document

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective September 29,

1997 unless, within 30 days of its

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective September 29,

1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

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 approval

action promulgated 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 40937

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added

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.

E. Petitions 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 September 29,

1997. 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated July 16, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of Part 52, Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.222 is being amended by

adding paragraph (a) (2) and (a)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 52.222 Negative declarations.

(a) * * *

(2) Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District.

(i) Plastic Parts Coating: Business

Machines and Plastic Parts Coating:

Other were submitted on June 6, 1996

and adopted on May 2, 1996.

(3) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(i) Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines, Plastic

Parts Coating: Other, Industrial Cleaning

Solvents, Offset Lithography, and

Shipbuilding Coatings were submitted

on July 12, 1996 and adopted on May

16, 1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–20217 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC032–2006; FRL–5864–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District

of Columbia, New Source Review

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the District of Columbia.

This revision amends the District’s new

source review program including the

regulations for the preconstruction

permitting new major sources and major

modifications in nonattainment areas.

This action is being taken under the

provisions of the Clean Air Act for the

approval of SIP revisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; District of

Columbia Department of Consumer and

Regulatory Affairs, 2100 Martin Luther

King Ave, S.E., Washington, DC 20020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Miller, (215) 566–2068.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 22, 1993, the District of

Columbia submitted new source review

(NSR) regulations that were

subsequently disapproved by EPA in a

direct final rulemaking on March 24,

1995. (60 FR 15483). Pursuant to section

179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA’s

disapproval required the imposition of

sanctions in two phases starting 18

months after disapproval unless and

until the deficiencies were corrected.

The first sanction, which started on

October 24, 1996, required 2:1 emission

offsets for the construction of new and

modified sources. The second sanction,

which was to be imposed 6 months

later, would have required the

withholding of federal highway funds

for all new highway projects in the

District.

The District submitted revised NSR

regulations on May 2, 1997, which

corrected the deficiencies. On June 2,

1997, EPA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPR) approving

the District’s NSR program (62 FR

29682). On the same day, EPA

published and solicited comment on an

interim final rule that stayed application

of the offset sanction and deferred

imposition of the highway sanction,

based on EPA’s proposed full approval

of the District’s NSR program (62 FR

29668). No public comments were

received on the NPR or the interim final

rule.

The intended effect of this action is to

approve the District’s NSR program for

the permitting of major new and

modified sources pursuant to the

requirements of the CAA. Other specific

requirements of the NSR program and

the rationale for EPA’s proposed action

were explained in the NPR and will not

be restated here. As a consequence of

today’s final approval of the District’s

NSR regulations as a SIP revision, the

sanctions resulting from EPA’s March

24, 1995 disapproval action are hereby

lifted and no longer applicable.

Final Action

EPA is approving the new source

review (NSR) program as a revision to

the District of Columbia SIP. Nothing in

this action should be construed as

permitting or allowing or establishing a

precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the

state implementation plan shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.