# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 59 Fed. Reg. 1730 1994

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 18 14:43:46 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.Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

a.m. on February 7, and 12:30 p.m. on February 8, and ending each day at 5
p.m. unless concluded earlier. Registration will occur one halfhour before the meeting is scheduled tobegin

onboth days. The second day will only proceed ifthere are more confirmed presenters than can be accommodated

on the first day.

Requests to present oral testimony
must bereceived on orbefore February 1, 1994, and will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis.Written
comments must be received on orbefore March 10, 1994. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: EPA Headquarters, Auditorium, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.

Written comments on the concept paper, discussed in Unit II.ofthis document, and other aspects of implementation ofsection 503 should be sent to Eun-Sook Goidel (7409), Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia O'Brien (7406), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; Telephone (202) 260--0688; Fax (202) 260-0981. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 20, 1993, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12873, entitled "Federal Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention," (58 FR 5411, October 22, 1993). Section 503 of Executive Order 12873 requires EPA to "issue guidance that recommends principlesthat Executive agencies should use in making determinations for the preference and purchase of environmentally preferable products." Draft guidance forimplementing this provision is to be published in the Federal Register by EPA within 180 days from the effective date ofthe Executive Order (April 18, 1994). The Executive Order also allows the Agency
to issue additional guidance for public
comment on how the principles can be applied to specific product categories.

H. Process

To implement section 503 of Executive Order 12873, the Agency is establishing a process whereby public input is solicited from all interested
persons and organizations. This process will include public meetings and discussions withstakeholders where interested parties will begiven an opportunity tO comment on a concept paper. This concept paper will be available in lateJanuary and will describe the Agency's preliminary proposal on guiding principles that Federal agencies should use when making determinations for the preference and purchase of environmentally preferable products.

To schedule oral testimony at the public meeting andto obtain a copy of the concept paper, contact EPA's Public Hearing Hotline, 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02173-3198; telephone (617) 674-7374. Callers will receive mail confirmation oftheir scheduled testimony and logistical information. Persons who wish to make oral presentations mustrestrict testimony to 7 minutes and are also expected to provide three written copies oftheir completed comments for inclusion in the official record. Ifinterested parties

are unable to attend the public meetings, they are invited to submit written comments tothe Agency.

Finally, the Agency plans to hold a series ofstakeholder meetings beginning in February, as timeallows, atEPA Headquarters. The Agency will accept requests for participation in stakeholder meetings on a first-come, first-served basis. Persons or organizations wishing
to signup for stakeholder meetings with Agency representatives should contact Claudia O'Brien atthe telephone number listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Due tothe limited amount oftime available to develop the draft guidance, the Agency requests that organizations and companies with similar interests arrange to meet with Agency representatives during the same time period. The Agency may also hold a limited number ofaudio orvideo conferences for
persons or organizations lacking travel funding. Interested persons should
contact Claudia O'Brien at the telephone number listed under FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

### M. Approach

The Agency hasbeen directed by Executive Order 12873 to develop an approach for Federal acquisition of environmentally preferable products that not only minimizes environmental burden, but also provides incentives to industry to continuously improve the environmental performance ofproducts and services to the Federal government. Ideally, the approach would guide Federal agencies in comparing environmental performance among competing products and services, so that the environmental impact becomes

a criterion like costor performance against which Federal agencies may select products orservices. ' As currently envisioned, the Agency's guidance on acquisition of environmentally preferable products would include three components: (1) General principles and procedures that apply across product categories and that Federal agencies canuse when implementing acquisition programs for the purchase ofenvironmentally preferable products; (2)guidance for applying these principles to specific products orproduct categories (tobe developed as appropriate at a later date); and (3) a code ofpractice that Federal agencies could use when judging the credibility ofnon-governmental environmental certification or ecolabeling programs.

Dated: January 7,1994.
Lynn I. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator forPrevention, PesticidesandToxic Substances.
[FRDoc. 94-858 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-O-F

[FRL-4825-1]

Prevention of SignificantDeterioration; Delegation of Authority; Maricopa County, AZ

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Delegation ofauthority.

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, San Francisco, has delegated full authority to Maricopa County toimplement and enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. DATES: The effective date ofthe delegation agreement is November 22, 1993. ADDRESSES: Environmental Management and Transportation Agency, Maricopa County Division ofAirPollution Control, 2406 South 24th Street, suite E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744- 1256. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has delegated, under the provisions which

are found in40 CFR 52.21(u), to Maricopa County: (a)The authority for all sources in that County subject to review for the prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) ofair quality, pursuant to Part CofTitle Iofthe Clean Air Act, as amended August 7, 1977, and the requirements promulgated in 

### 1730

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1730 1994

### Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

the July 1, 1992, edition of40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980, under authority ofsections 101, 110, and 160-169 of the Clean Air Act: and (b) the authority to review, administer, and enforce throughout the County the PSD requirements imposed by theClean AirAct sections 101, 110, and 160-169, and 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7,

1980. The following letter and attached agreement represent the terms and conditions ofthe amended delegation.

The PSD Delegation ofAuthority is reviewable under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14,1994.

Dated: December 13, 1993. David P.Howekamp, Director, AirandToxicsDivision, RegionIX.

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IX-75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
December 16,1993.

Karen J.Heidel. Ph.D., Environmental Management & Transportation Agency, 2406 South 24th Street,Suite E-214, Phoenix. AZ 85034. Re: PSD Delegation Agreement for Maricopa County Dear Dr. Heidel: I am pleased to transmit to youtwo signed originals ofthe delegation agreement for the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration program. Please note that the delegation is effective on the date ofthe Regional Administrator's signature. EPA will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the delegation.

EPA will continue to provide any guidance

ortechnical assistance that may be needed for Maricopa County's implementation ofthis agreement. EPA is committed to including the Division ofAir Pollution Control in decisions relating to determinations of noncompliance with permits Issued under this agreement, intended PSD enforcement actions, and in any intended revocation proceedings related to this agreement. We are also committed to maintaining, as Iknowyou are,unobstructed channels of communication between our agencies. We look forward to a continuing partnership in the permitting program. Sincerely,
David P.Howekamp, Director, AirandToxicsDivision.
Agreement for Delegation ofAuthority ofthe Regulations forPrevention of Significant Deterioration ofAir Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and MC

The undersigned, onbehalf ofthe Mari'copa County (MC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agree'to the delegation ofauthority.forthe* administrative, techhical and enforcement elements ofthe source review provisions of40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), asthey may beamended andin accordance with the permit review requirements in40 CFR part 124 subparts A and C, from U.S. EPA to MC, subject to the terms and conditions below. This delegation is executed pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), Delegation ofAuthority.

I. General Delegation Conditions

A. Authority is delegated for all

sources under thejurisdiction ofMC that are subjectto review forPSD. This includes all source categories listed In 40 CFR52.21 for each pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act.

B. This delegation maybe amended at any time by the formal written agreement ofboth MC and U.S. EPA, including amendments to add, change.

or remove conditions orterms ofthis Agreement.

C.Ifthe Regional Administrator determines thatthe County is not implementing orenforcing the PSD
program in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthis delegation, the requirements of40 CFR52.21, 40 CFR 124, or the Clean Air Act, this delegation, after consultation with MC,
may be revoked in whole or in part. Any such revocation shall be effective as of the date speciffed in a Notice of Revocation to the County. Nothing In this paragraph shall preclude U.S. EPA from exercising its enforcement authority, asprovided in paragraph V.B. below.

D. The permit appeal provisions of40 

### CFR 124.19 shallapply to all appeals to the Administrator on permits issuedby MCunder this delegation. Forpurposes ofimplementing the federal permit appeal provisions under this delegation, ifthere is a public comment requesting

a change in adraft preliminary determination ordraft permit conditions, the final permit issued by MC is required to contain statements which indicate that forFederal PSD
purposes and in accordance with 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, (1)the effective date ofthe permit is 30 days after the final decision to issue, modify, revoke and reissue the permit; and (2) ifan appeal ismade to the Administrator, the effective date ofthe permit Is suspended until such time asthe appeal is resolved. MC shall inform U.S. EPA (Region IX) in accordance with conditions ofthis delegation when there is public comment requesting a change in the preliminary determination orin

a draft permit condition. Failure by MC to comply with the terms ofthis paragraph shall render the subject permit Invalid for Federal PSD
purposes.

E. By this agreement, MC assumes authority for enforcement and permit modification/amendment for EPA issued NSR/PSD permits.

F.This delegation of authority becomes effective upon the date that both parties have signed the Agreement.

ILCommunications Between U.S. EPA and MC

MCand U.S. EPA will use the following communication procedures:

A.MC shall report to U.S. EPA on a quarterly basis the compliance status of the sources that have received a PSD permit from eitherMC or U.S. EPA, The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) will be used for this purpose. Compliance determinations will be made with respect to the conditions established in the PSD permits.

B. MC shall forward to U.S. EPA, at the beginning ofthe public comment period for eachPSD permit, a summary of (1)the findings related to each PSD application, (2) thejustification for MC's preliminary determination, and (3)a copy ofthe draft permit. Should there be any comments or concerns about the pending PSD permit, U.S. EPA shall communicate these comments and

concerns to MC as soon as possible prior
to the close ofthe public comment period.

C. MC shall forward to EPA Region IX (attn: A-5-1) copies ofthe final action

on the PSD permit applications at the time ofissuance, aswell as copies of substantive public comments. MC must address any public comments not incorporated into the permit, and shall provide a summary ofthe responses.

D. MC shall send U.S. EPA copies of preliminary determinations on PSD permit modifications and amendments
at or prior to the beginning of the public comment period.U.S. EPA will provide
comments to MCprior to the close of the public comment period. ' E. MC shall send to EPA a copy ofall applicability determinations and justifications made that would involve PSD exemptions due to offsetting or netting (40 CFR52.21(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(21).

1I. Revisions to Title40 CFR 52.21

A. This delegation covers any revisionsthat are promulgated for 40 CFR52.21 and 40 CFR 124. The terms "40 CFR52.21" and "40 CFR 124" as used in the delegation request and throughout this Agreement, include such regulations as are in effect on the date thisAgreement is executed and any 1731

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1731 1994Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 /. Notices

revisions that are promulgated after that date.

B. In addition, the following U.S. EPA policies shall apply to PSD review:

1.U.S. EPA is responsible for the issuance ofPSD permits on Indian Lands, under sections 110(c) and 301 of the Clean Air Act. States (ortheir delegates) have no authority to establish air pollution control requirements on Indian Reservations, unless requested to by the Tribal Governing Body.

2. According to U.S. EPA guidance published on September 22, 1987 and supplemental guidance published on July 28, 1988, all delegated agencies
must now consider pollutants not subject to the Clean Air Act in their Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations. The BACT determinations must include a review of the toxic effects ofunregulated pollutants and the impact ofthe proposed BACT on the emissions of these pollutants.

3. MC shall consult with the appropriate Federal, State, and local land use agencies prior to issuance of preliminary determinations on PSD permits. In particular, U.S. EPA requires that MC shall:

(a) Notify the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. EPA when a PSD permit application has been received, inorder to assist U.S. EPA in carrying out its non-delegable responsibilities under section 7 ofthe Endangered Species Act (PL 97-304). (b)Notifypotential applicants ofthe potential need for consultation between U.S. EPA and the FWS ifan endangered species may be affected by the project. U.S. EPA's data sheet may be used for thisprocess (copy enclosed).

(clRefrain from issuing a final PSD permit unless the FWShas determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect any endangered species.

4.MC shall consider a dry scrubber for sulfur dioxide control, abaghouse or electrostatic precipitator for particulate control, and efficient combustion techniques forcarbon monoxide control in theirBACT determinations for municipal waste combustors pursuant to U.S. EPA guidance published on June 26,1987.

5. MCshall begin any BACT determination with the most stringent control options available forthat category, pursuant to additional BACT guidance issued on December 1, 1987. U.S. EPA will consider as deficient any BACT determination not complying with this "top-down" requirement.

6. Upon notification from EPA, MC shallimplement such new regulations

ordirectives pending revision ofthis Agreement. IV. Permits
A. Inany matter involving interpretation ofsections 160-169 ofthe Clean Air Act, or40 CFR 52.21, and of 40 CFR 124 where guidance on the implementation, review, administration,

or enforcement ofthese sections has not been sent to MC, U.S. EPA willbe contacted and requested to provide the appropriate guidance.

B.MC shall at no time grant any waiver tothe PSD permit requirements.

C.Permits issued under this delegation shall contain language certifying that theFederal PSD requirements have been satisfied.

D. Authorities to Construct must include appropriate provisions, as specified inAttachment A, to ensure permit enforceability. Permit conditions shall, at a minimum, contain reporting requirements on initiation of construction, startup, and where applicable, source testing and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In all cases where tests

are required, the tests methods shall be specified. All cases where CEMS are required, appropriate testing and reporting requirements shall be included. Upset/breakdown and malfunction conditions shall be included in allpermits.

E. U.S. EPA will assist MCin the BACT determination forall PSD permit applications filed with MC, such that U.S. EPA and MCjointly concur on each BACT determination. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MCon the final permit shallconstitute concurrence on the BACT determinations

F. All modeling analyses for determination of increment consumption and compliance with the NAAQS will requirethe joint

concurrence ofU.S. EPA and MC. The signatures ofU.S. EPA andMC on the final permit shall constitute

concurrence on the modeling analyses.

G. Separate fromconditions E and F and for a given time as specified inthis subpart, U.S. EPA and MC shall jointly

concur on the entire analysis and permit conditions foreach PSD permit issued. This requirement for dual concurrence shall be waived beginning with the first application submitted and deemed complete two (2) years afterthe date of this agreement, orafter U.S. EPA

concurs with MC on ten (10) final permits issued pursuant to this delegation agreement, whichever occurs later.In any event, U.S. EPA shall provide written notice to MC when the requirement fordual concurrence no longer applies.

H. MC shall conduct an annual review ofthe NO2 increment status foreach Section 107 area designated as attainment over which it has jurisdiction and shall prepare a summary report ofthe review. Such review shallbe made in accordance with currentU.S. EPA guidance as provided to MC. Emissions from the following sources consume NO 2 increment: (1)any new major stationary

source or modification ofa major stationary source on which construction begins after February 8, 1988; and (2) minor, area, and mobile sources, after the minor source baseline date, as it is defined by 40 CFR 52.21. The initial review ofthe NO2 increment status shall address the consumption ofNO2 increment between February 8, 1988, and the effective date ofthis agreement.

I.MC shall conduct an annual review, similar to the one in preceeding subpart H, on the status ofthe PMo increment. For that part ofMaricopa County designated nonattainment for TSP, the requirement for tracking PM1o increment consumption becomes effective onthe date ofreceipt ofthe first major source application deemed complete after theJune 3,1994, implementation date for PM,0 increments. For all other areas within Maricopa County, the minor source baseline date established forTSP remains in effect, but PMio increments replace TSP increments as the particulate matter indicator.

J.U.S. EPA shall retain the responsibility ofissuing the PSD permit forPalo Verde Steel, but enforcement of the final permit terms and conditions on the source shall be under local authority.

V. Permit Enforcement

A. The primary responsibility for' enforcement ofthe PSD regulations as found in 40 CFRpart 52 inMaricopa County willrest withMC, except where responsibility is vested in the State of Arizona. Pursuant to A.R.S. 49-402, the State ofArizona has originaljurisdiction

over the following sources in Maricopa County:

1. Smelting ofmetal ore. 2. Petrolebm refineries. 3. Coal fired electrical generating stations.

4. Portland cement plants. 5. Air pollution generated by portable

sources unless delegated to MC.

6. Air pollutionby mobile sources for the purpose ofregulating those sources

as prescribed byA.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Articles 4 & 5. MC willenforce the provisions that pertain to the PSD program, except in those cases where the rules or policy of MC are more stringent. In such cases, 1732

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1732 1994Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

MCmay elect to implement the more stinigent requirements.

B. Nothing inthis delegation agreement shall prohibit EPA from enforcing the PSD provisions ofthe Clean AirAct, the PSD regulations or anyPSD permit issuedby MC pursuant to thisAgreement.

C. In the event thatMC is unwilling

orunable to enforce a provision ofthis delegation with respect to a source subject to the PSD regulations, MCwill immediately notify the Regional Administrator. Failure to notify the Regional Administrator does not preclude U.S. EPA from exercising its enforcement authority.

Dated: November 9,1993. James D.Bruner, Chairman, MaricopaCountyBoard of Supervisors.

Dated: November 22, 1993. John Wise, Acting for Felicia A. Marcus, RegionalAdministrator, U.S. EPA RegionIX.

Attachment A

All Authorities to Construct, where applicable, shall contain: 1.Identification of all points of emission, both stack and fugitive.

2. Specification ofa numerical emission limitation foreach point of emission in terms ofmass rate and/or concentration limitations. Ifemission testingbased on a numerical emission limitation is infeasible, the permit may instead prescribe a design, operational,

or equipment standard. Any permits issued without numerical emission limitations must contain conditions which assure that the design characteristics or equipment will be properly maintained or that the operational conditions will be properly performed so as to continuously achieve the assumed degree ofcontrol.

3. Limitations or factors which were the basis for the air quality impact analysis must be specified (e.g. hours of operation, stack height, materials processed which affect emissions).

4. Methods and frequency of determining contibued compliance for each point ofemission (such as from the SIP or ifthe source is subject to New Source Performance Standards [NSPS]

or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] or explicitly identified if areference method is not used.

5. Recordkeeping requirements which enable the agency to ascertain continued compliance, especially where factors such as hours ofoperation, throughput ofmaterials, sulfur contAnt offuels, fuel usage, and type or quantity ofmaterials processed are conditions ofthe permit.

6.A condition that the permit such that it will expire ifconstruction is not commenced within eighteen (18) months or a shorter period.

7. A condition that the source is responsible forproviding sampling and testing facilities at its own expense.

8. A confition that continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) will be used forenforcement purposes.

9. Reporting requirements which enable the agency to monitor the following:

(a)Progress of source construction including the date by which construction is completed; and

(b) Compliance with (1)emission limitations, (2) operationai limitations, (3) and work practice standards; the reporting requirements should include

excess emissions reports and source test results.

10. Permits issued under this delegation should contain language certifying that the federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.

11. As a courtesy to sources exempted from PSD review due to federally enforceable operational orprocess restrictions, orthe use ofcontrols more stringent than required by applicable SIP limits, the source shall be advised that any relaxation ofthose limits may subject the entire source to full PSD review as ifconstruction had notyet begun. Suggested language is as follows:

This source is exempt from PSD review because of* * *(state reason, for example, "the requirement that limits operation to eight hours per day"). Anyrelaxation in this limitwhich increases your potentialto emit above the applicable PSDthreshold will require afull PSDreview ofthe affected

source as ifconstruction had notyet commenced.

[FR Doc. 94-802 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am)

BILUNG CODE 60-P

[FRL-4825-2]

Prevention of SignificantDeterioration; RescissionofAuthority;Fresno County, CA

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). ACTION: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority.

SUMMARY: The Director, Air &Toxics Division, for EPA Region IX, San Francisco has rescinded local Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) permitting authority inFresno County, California. DATES: Rescission oflocal PSD permitting authority is effective April 9,. 1993.
ADDRESSES: David L. Crow, Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics 1 Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744- 1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1991, the State ofCalifornia passed legislation that effectively required the eight separate counties of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to form

a single air pollution control district (APCD). EPA had delegated PSD authority to Fresno County APCD by an agreement dated December 23, 1985. Because the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD has chosen to defer to EPA the regulation ofsources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA is responding to their request to rescind PSD authority previously delegated to Fresno County APCD. The following letter represents the terms and conditions ofthe rescission.

The PSD Delegation ofAuthority is reviewable under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean AirAct only in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

Dated: December 10, 1993. David P. Howekamp, Director, AirandToxicsDivision, RegionIX.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY' April 9, 1993. David L.Crow, Executive Director/APCO, SanJoaquin Valley, UnifiedAirPollutionControl District,1999 Tuolumne Street,Suite 200,Fresno,CA 93721. Dear Mr.Crow: This letterresponds to your request to EPA to rescind Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting authority in Fresno and Kern counties. We recognize that therequest, dated March 16, 1993, and received by this office on March 19, 1993, is consistent with ongoing efforts to attain a more coordinated approach to air quality management in the San Joaquin Valley.

In September 1991, the State ofCalifornia passed legislation that effectively required the formation ofa single air pollution control district in theValley Air Basin. Tothat end, eight countiesjoined efforts in March 1992
to form the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District comprises the counties ofFresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, aswell as that part of Kern County located in the Valley Air Basin. 1733

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1733 1994