53242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: September 16, 1997.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 Y—Minnesota

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(44) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(44) This revision provides for data

which have been collected under the

enhanced monitoring and operating

permit programs to be used for

compliance certifications and

enforcement actions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Minnesota Rules, sections

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.(5), 7017.0100

Subparts 1 and 2, both effective

February 28, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27129 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA–5029a, FRL–5904–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

VOC RACT for Phillip Morris, Hercules,

Virginia Power Station, and the

Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving six State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia. These revisions establish and

require volatile organic compound

(VOC) reasonably available control

technology (RACT) on six major sources

located in Virginia. The intended effect

of this action is to approve sourcespecific plan approvals and Consent

Agreements that establish the abovementioned RACT requirements in

accordance with the Clean Air Act (the

Act).

DATES: This action is effective

November 28, 1997 unless notice is

received on or before October 29, 1997

that adverse or critical comments will

be submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Air, Radiation, and

Toxics Division, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

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;

and the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Peck, (215) 566–2165, at the

EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, and

March 26, 1997, the Commonwealth of

Virginia submitted formal revisions to

its SIP. These revisions consist of plan

approvals and Consent Agreements,

signed by the companies and the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, to establish and impose sourcespecific VOC RACT requirements for

major sources of VOC. Today’s

rulemaking proposes to approve the

source-specific VOC RACT

requirements for six companies. All of

the sources are located in the Richmond

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

I. Background

Under the pre-amended Clean Air Act

(i.e., the Act prior to the 1990

Amendments), ozone nonattainment

areas were required to adopt RACT rules

for VOC sources. EPA issued three sets

of control technique guideline

documents (CTGs), establishing a

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for

various categories of VOC sources. The

Richmond, Virginia area was designated

nonattainment under the pre-amended

Act and was required to adopt RACT for

all CTG categories as well as non-CTG

VOC sources with a potential to emit

100 tons per year (TPY) or more. Under

the 1990 amendments to the Act,

amended sections 172(c)(1) and

182(a)(2), required the Richmond,

Virginia nonattainment area to correct

its RACT requirements in effect prior to

enactment of the 1990 amendments.

Virginia submitted those RACT

corrections as SIP revisions on May 10,

1991 and June 20, 1991. Among the

regulations in that SIP revision, was a

provision (Rule 120–04–0407)

establishing the legal basis for imposing

RACT on all individual major VOC

sources subject to RACT in the Northern

Virginia and Richmond nonattainment

areas not covered by an existing state

adopted VOC control regulation. The

RACT correction SIP was approved by

EPA on March 31, 1994 (See 59 FR

15117). To implement Rule 120–04–

0407, the Commonwealth must submit

an enforceable RACT determination for

all major VOC sources not otherwise

controlled under existing VOC RACT

regulations of the SIP.

Sections 182(b)(2) (A), (B) and (C) of

the Act require moderate and above

areas to adopt standards for all sources

covered by any CTG document issued

by the Administrator after 1990 and

before the area is required to attain the

standard; all sources covered by any

CTG before the date of enactment of the

1990 CAA amendments; and all major

sources of VOC not subject to a CTG. In

addition, areas newly designated under

the 1990 amendments as ozone

nonattainment areas are required to

adopt RACT rules consistent with those

previously designated nonattainment.

This provision of the Act makes

nonattainment areas that were

previously exempt from RACT

requirements ‘‘catch up’’ to

requirements during the earlier period,

and therefore, is known as the RACT

catch-up requirement. Because Rule

120–04–0407 imposed RACT on all

major VOC sources in the Northern

Virginia and Richmond nonattainment

areas on an individual basis, this rule

partially satisfied the RACT catch-up

requirement. On November 6, 1992,

Virginia submitted a SIP revision

expanding the geographic boundaries of

the VOC emission control areas to

coincide with the revised boundaries of

the Richmond and Northern Virginia

ozone nonattainment areas resulting

from the 1990 amendments. This SIP

was approved by EPA on March 12,

1997 (59 FR 52701). To satisfy the RACT

correction and catch-up requirements

under sections 182(a)(2) and 182(b)(2)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53243

(A), (B) and (C), and implement Rule

120–04–0407, Virginia has submitted

source specific VOC RACT

determinations for the following six

companies in the Richmond, Virginia

ozone nonattainment area:

(1) Philip Morris-Blended Leaf—2301

Everett Street, Richmond;

(2) Philip Morris-Park 500 Facility—

Chesterfield County;

(3) Philip Morris-Tobacco

Manufacturing Center—3601 Commerce

Road, Richmond;

(4) Virginia Electric and Power

Station—Chesterfield County;

(5) Hercules Incorporated, Aqualon

Division—Hopewell; and

(6) Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Facility.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

The details of the RACT requirements

for the sources can be found in the

docket and accompanying technical

support document (TSD). Below is a

summary of the facility type and the

applicable RACT requirements for each

source. Each SIP revision consists of a

Consent Agreement signed by the source

and the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality. The Consent

Agreements are enforceable documents

which include a description of the

RACT technologies, control efficiencies,

operating parameters, monitoring and

reporting requirements. For further

details on the sources’ processes and

how RACT was determined, refer to the

TSD associated with this rulemaking.

EPA is approving revisions to the

Virginia SIP pertaining to the

determination of RACT for six major

sources of VOC. This action is being

taken under section 110 of the Act.

1. Philip Morris—Blended Leaf,

Richmond

Philip Morris—Blended Leaf is a

tobacco processing facility that has

potential VOC emissions greater than

100 TPY. Tobacco by-products from

other Philip Morris facilities are

combined to form a continuous tobacco

sheet at the Blended Leaf Plant. These

by-products are combined with dry and

liquid low-VOC flavorings, and mixed

into a slurry. The slurry is dried in a

natural gas-fired dryer, cut, and packed

into hogsheads for shipment. There are

three drying lines each consisting of two

natural gas-fired dryers. The Plant

operates 24 hours each day, seven days

each week, and 50 weeks per year.

Based on 1991 throughput data, the total

uncontrolled stack VOC emissions from

the facility were estimated to be 238.4

tons per year.

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50080,

dated February 27, 1996 is determined

to be no controls as Virginia determined

that add-on controls were not

economically feasible or cost effective.

The Consent Agreement does require

the continued use of low-VOC

flavorings as well as record keeping and

reporting requirements.

2. Philip Morris—Park 500, Chesterfield

Philip Morris—Park 500 is a tobacco

processing facility that has potential

VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY.

The tobacco processing facility consists

of two separate, distinct facilities which

are located on adjoining property: the

Reconstituted Leaf (R/L) Plant and the

Bermuda Hundred Facility. At the R/L

Plant, all VOC emissions are generated

primarily from the tobacco drying

processes and from the raw materials

blending area. The uncontrolled stack

VOC emissions from the R/L Plant are

estimated to be 143 tons per year. At the

Bermuda Hundred Facility, all VOC

emissions are generated primarily from

the tobacco drying processes and from

the application of final flavoring to the

tobacco. The uncontrolled stack VOC

emissions from the Bermuda Hundred

Facility are estimated to be 236.4 tons

per year.

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50722,

dated March 26, 1997 is determined to

be no controls as Virginia determined

that add-on controls were not

economically infeasible or costeffective.

3. Philip Morris, Tobacco Manufacturing

Center, Richmond

Philip Morris, Incorporated is a

cigarette manufacturing center that has

potential VOC emissions greater than

100 TPY. RACT as prescribed in the

Consent Agreement, Registration

Number 50076, dated July 12, 1996

requires, among other provisions, that

the VOC emissions from the flavor

cylinders where high-VOC-emitting

flavorings are applied and the aftercut

dryers in Process Lines #1 and #2 shall

be controlled by a thermal oxidation

unit(s) having a destruction efficiency of

at least 95% on a mass basis. Each

thermal oxidization unit shall be

equipped with a continuous

temperature monitor, automatic control

dampers which prevent the flow of VOC

laden process exhaust air to each unit

until the minimum temperature is

attained, and a pressure gauge in the

duct prior to the oxidation units) to

continuously monitor and insure that a

negative pressure is being maintained in

the exhaust system. Data from the

continuous monitoring devices shall be

recorded as one-minute readings and

reduced to 3-hour averages on a rolling

basis. A minimum temperature

requirement will be established using

EPA Reference Method 25 within 180

days of initial startup of the thermal

oxidation units.

If Philip Morris desires to reformulate

any flavorings associated with the flavor

cylinders and the aftercut dryers in

Process Lines #1 and #2, the respective

equipment in which the reformulated

flavorings are implemented will be

exempt from the thermal oxidation

unit(s) provided the following

conditions are met:

(1) Emissions resulting from any such

change in formulation must be verified

by stack sampling using appropriate

EPA test methods and material balance.

(2) On a daily basis, Philip Morris

shall track production and flavoring

throughputs. Philip Morris must

calculate the emissions, in pounds per

day, emanating through the stack and

the emissions that would have occurred

on January 1, 1993 prior to the

reformulation with the affected

equipment being exhausted to the

thermal oxidation unit(s). Philip Morris

must compare the results of these two

equations. Emissions from the

reformulated flavoring must always be

less than the emissions which would

have been emanating had the

reformulation had not occurred and the

affected equipment were exhausted to

the thermal oxidation unit(s).

Philip Morris shall maintain records

of all operating parameters necessary to

demonstrate compliance. Pre-RACT

facility-wide uncontrolled emissions

were calculated at 1250 TPY. PostRACT facility-wide emissions are 684

TPY.

4. Virginia Power—Chesterfield Station,

Chesterfield

Virginia Power—Chesterfield Station

is an electric utility that has potential

VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY.

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50396,

dated May 30, 1996 requires, among

other provisions, that the VOC

emissions from boilers 3, 4, 5, and 6 be

good combustion practices. Compliance

shall be demonstrated by

Implementation of a Work Planning and

Tracking System (WATS). Virginia

Power shall maintain records of

operation, malfunctions, continuous

monitoring and all completed scheduled

and unscheduled maintenance, with the

exception of minor repairs initiated and

performed by individual employees in

the conduct of their routine duties. No

additional controls were determined to

be economically feasible or costeffective. Both pre-RACT and post-
53244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

RACT annual VOC emissions calculate

to 183.6 TPY.

5. Hercules, Incorporated—Aqualon

Division, Hopewell

Hercules, Incorporated—Aqualon

Division is a synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing facility that has potential

VOC emissions greater than 100 TPY.

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50363,

dated July 12, 1996 is as follows:

1. VOC emissions from the Cloacal

Process area shall be controlled by

solvent recovery and process scrubbers

having an overall control efficiency of at

least 96% on a mass basis, respectively,

calculated monthly as a six-month

rolling average. VOC flow from the

Cloacal Process area shall be measured

and the totalized flow recorded for each

batch.

2. VOC emissions from the Ethyl

cellulose (E.C.) Process area shall be

controlled by solvent recovery and

process scrubbers having an overall

control efficiency of at least 90% on a

mass basis, respectively, calculated

monthly as a six-month rolling average.

3. VOC emissions from the

Carboxymethyl cellulose (CBC) Process

area shall be controlled by solvent

recovery and process scrubbers having

an overall control efficiency of at least

98% on a mass basis, respectively,

calculated monthly as a six-month

rolling average. For the CBC area, VOC

still output shall be continuously

measured and the totalized flow

recorded once per shift.

4. VOC emissions from the Nitrosyl

Process area shall be controlled by

solvent recovery and process scrubbers

having an overall control efficiency of at

least 98% on a mass basis, respectively,

calculated monthly as a six-month

rolling average. For the Nitrosyl area,

VOC still output shall be continuously

measured and the totalized flow

recorded once per shift.

5. VOC emissions from the

Monochloroacetic Acid (MCA) Process

area and the Technical Facility shall be

controlled by solvent recovery and

process scrubbers. Each area, the MCA

Process area and the Technical Facility,

shall not exceed 15 tons of VOCs per

year.

Compliance from the Cloacal, E.C.,

CBC, and Nitrosyl process areas shall be

demonstrated by specific equations

designated in the Consent Agreement.

Compliance for the MCA Process area

and the Technical Facility require

record keeping and reporting. Pre-RACT

uncontrolled VOC emissions from this

facility were calculated to be 246,743

TPY. Post-RACT controlled VOC

emissions from this facility calculate to

5474 TPY.

6. Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Facility, Hopewell

Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Facility has potential VOC

emissions greater than 100 TPY.

RACT as prescribed in the Consent

Agreement, Registration Number 50735,

dated May 30, 1996 requires, among

other provisions, that the VOC

emissions from the Grit Chambers/

Parshall Flume shall be controlled by a

cover and vent. Total post-RACT

emissions calculate to 225.6 TPY.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving all of the provisions

in the plan approvals and Consent

Agreements, for the six sources

discussed above, submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia as SIP

revisions. All the Consent Agreements

were effective on the date of signature

by both signatory parties. The Consent

Agreements do not contain expiration

dates.

EPA is approving this SIP revision

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, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective November 28,

1997 unless, by October 29, 1997,

adverse or critical comments are

received.

If 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. 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 on November 28, 1997. If

adverse comments are received that do

not pertain to all documents subject to

this rulemaking action, those documents

not affected by the adverse comments

will be finalized in the manner

described here. Only those documents

that receive adverse comments will be

withdrawn.

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.

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

Commonwealth is already imposing.

Therefore, because the federal SIP

approval does not impose any new

requirements, the EPA 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 settlement

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53245

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

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. 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 December 15,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Regional

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 to

approve VOC RACT determinations for

six individual sources in Virginia as a

revisions to the Commonwealth’s SIP

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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 26, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 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 VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2420 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(120 ) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(120) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted on

April 9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23,

1996, and March 26, 1997 by the

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality regarding non-CTG VOC RACT

requirements for six sources:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letters submitted by the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality

transmitting source-specific VOC RACT

determinations in the form of consent

agreements on the following dates: April

9, 1996, August 8, 16, 19, 23, 1996, and

March 26, 1997.

(B) Consent agreements:

(1) Philip Morris—Blended Leaf, City

of Richmond, VA, Consent Agreement

Registration No. 50080, effective on

February 27, 1996.

(2) Philip Morris—Park 500,

Chesterfield County, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration No. 50722,

effective on March 26, 1997.

(3) Philip Morris Tobacco

Manufacturing Center, City of

Richmond, VA, Consent Agreement

Registration No. 50076, effective on July

12, 1996.

(4) Virginia Power—Chesterfield

Station, Chesterfield County, VA,

Consent Agreement Registration No.

50396, effective on May 30, 1996.

(5) Hercules Incorporated—Aqualon

Division, City of Hopewell, VA, Consent

Agreement Registration No. 50363,

effective on July 12, 1996.

(6) Hopewell Regional Wastewater

Treatment Facility, City of Hopewell,

VA, Consent Agreement Registration

No. 50735, effective on May 30, 1996.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Technical Support Documents

submitted as part of the RACT

determinations in paragraph (c)(120) (i)

of this section by the Commonwealth of

Virginia on April 9, 1996, August 8, 16,

19, 23, 1996, and March 26, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–27124 Filed 10–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[FRL–5904–8]

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources and National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants: Approval of Delegation of

Authority to New Mexico

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

delegation of authority to the State of

New Mexico to implement and enforce

the New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) and National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP). The provisions of full

authority apply to all of the NSPS and

NESHAP promulgated by the EPA from

February 1, 1995, through April 1, 1996.

Partial authority covers all new and

amended standards promulgated after

these dates, except as follows. The

delegation of authority, under this

document, does not apply to: The

sources located in Bernalillo County,

New Mexico; the sources located on

Indian lands as specified in the

delegation agreement and in this

document; the standards of performance

for new residential wood heaters

(subpart AAA) under 40 CFR part 60;

and NESHAP radionuclide standards

specified under 40 CFR part 61.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The New Mexico

Environment Department’s request and

delegation agreement may be obtained

by writing to one of the following

addresses:

Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air

Planning Section (6PD-L),

Environmental Protection Agency,

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,

TX 75202, telephone: (214) 665–7214.

Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico

Environment Department (NMED),

Harold Runnels Building, Room So.

2100, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa

Fe, NM 87502, telephone: (505) 827–

0042.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ken Boyce, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), Environmental Protection Agency,

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,

Texas 75202, telephone: (214) 665–

7259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

301, in conjunction with Sections 110,

111(c)(1) and 112 (l)(1) of the Clean Air

Act (the Act) authorizes EPA to delegate

authority to implement and enforce the

standards set out in 40 CFR part 60,

New Source Performance Standards and

40 CFR part 61, National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Authority for the NSPS and NESHAP

programs was delegated to the State of

New Mexico (except for sources located

in Bernalillo County and on Indian

lands) on March 15, 1985.

The State requested the EPA to update

the delegation of authority to the State

for the NSPS and NESHAP programs

from February 1, 1995, through April 1,

1996. The State’s request includes a

revision of Air Quality Control

Regulations (AQCR) 20 NMAC 2.77 and

20 NMAC 2.78 as adopted by the New

Mexico Environmental Improvement

Board. These revisions incorporated the

Federal NSPS and NESHAP by reference

through April 1, 1996. The effective date