p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

143) ll-J-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 12:31:58 PM Sheet 143 of 148 
iji IS?*". :^7^7''A-fMa^LMHaHa^BBB-HaMaBBBa^BHa^aBMHaiBM.^^ J 

P.2 

a;.: . -. w : -----

I 

-• V:IF 

I. til 

••!. « 

i

;

 .: 

111!!' 

' 51 

fi ll 

.81 ! 

7 Co^oratio.v55 F.R. 13184. "April ariflS^A^ v^lr^ The 

'' Caiixir'CnriforiKt^ 

_Idterim:Waivn'aA^'jemaln liTeffecf'• ."~T.>Cni.mcai^.^^ 

i^HMT^mflaTW^nffl'Tani?arts im:.' ia. J3(£.|rjjJE >Tjjx^ana^i^ 

" -j'l Januarya^9M;fAmiitTb^ AifCorioWoning.: 

,%'J I hic,^F^Ttl553,^a^^3.^^,'aia^; 

' • I \ Snyder G*meriUU2orpbrati8ii,i58Tlt"19511, 

O0" l I Apnimiwi.•-•• - • :- •-?•:••••••- -

Armstrong's Application for Interim -.-• •-••• 

^WaiverdoeffnotprovidesufBdent

 :;'---•'" 

infonnation to evaluate what if-any - '•': 

economic impact VT competitive disadvantage 

Armstrong wiU likely-experience absent a 

favorable determination on to application. 

However, in those instances~wbereiha'likely 

success of the PetitionioT Waiver has.been 

demonstrated, based uponDOE-having:.-... 

agreed a waiverfor a similar product design, 

it is in the public interest to have similar : 

.products tested and rated for energy •; 2. 

consumption on the comparable basis. 

Therefore,. Armstrong's Application for an 

Interim Wavier from the DOE test procedures 

for its EG6G gas furnace .regarding blower 

.time delay is granted. 

Armstrong shall be permitte'd.to test.its Tine 

of EGSGgas furnace on the basis of the test 

proceduresspecifiedinlO CFR part430, . 

Subpart B, Appendix N, with the modification 

set forth below. " ' 

(i) Section 3.0 in Appendix N is deleted and 

replaced with the following .paragraph: 

3-OTestProcedure."Testing and 

measurements shall be as specified in section 

8 in ANSI/ASHRAE103-82 with the . 

exception of sections 9.22,9.3 J, and 8.3.2. 

and the'inclusion of the following additional 

procedures: 

(ii) Add a new paragraph 310'in Appendix 

N as follows: -

; 

3.10 Gas- and Oil-Fueled Central Furnaces. 

After equilibrium conditions are achieved 

following the cool-down test and the required 

measurements performed, turn on the furnace 

and measure the flue gas temperature, using 

the thermocouple grid described above, at 0.5 

and 2.5-minutes after the main bumer(s) 

comes on. After the burner start-up, delay the 

blower start-up by 1.5-minutes (t-), unless: (1) 

the furnace employs a single motor to drive 

the power burner and the indoor air 

circulation blower, in which case the burner 

and blower shall be started together or (2) 

the furnace is designed to operate using an 

unvarying delay time that is other than 1.5-

minutes, in which case the fan control shall 

.. be permitted to start the blower, or (3) the 

delay time results it the activation of a 

temperature safety device which shuts off the 

burner, in which case the fan control shall be 

permitted to start the blower. In the latter 

case,.if the fan control is adjustable, set it to 

start the blower at the highest temperature. If 

the fan control is permitted to start the 

blower, measure time delay, (t-), using a stop 

watch. Record the measured temperatures. 

During the heat-up test for oil-fueled 

furnaces, maintain the draft in the flue pipe 

with ± OM inch of "wetter gauge of the 

manufacturer's recommended on-period 

draft 

This Interim Waiver is based upon the 

presumed validity of statements and all 

allegations submitted by the company .This 

Interim Wavier may be revoked or modified 

at anytime upon a determination that the 

f8xtual<baiis underlying the application Is " 

correct 

| | f.m'251995 

2;for a periba;dfiroili^TJHinffl©OEacts Sn 

^the ftti^'I^WaviCT.-TfiydievBr S'sboner, 

•KandTnay^bee^tended^OTin^aolrionaliBO-' 

.-lidanierioicVtf-woeuary.':''">''''' •:--'-vC~ >'.-•• *'..•> 

1_ Sincerely,'-'•'•'••'. •-'-.' 

J. Michael Davis, 

'Assistant Secretary,'Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

. -TJR Doc. 91-17803 Filed 7-25-91; 8:45 am] 

BlUm O CODE B450-OVM " . 

Office of Fossil Energy 

IFE Docket No.St-23-NG] 

Puget Sound Power & Ught Co; Order 

Granting Authorization to Import 

Canadian Natural Gas and Granting 

.Intervention 

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, 

-Department of Energy. 

.ACTION: Notice of an order granting 

authorization to import Canadian 

' -natural gas and granting intervention. 

SUMMARY-. The Office of Fossil Energy of 

the Department of Energy gives notice 

that itbas issued an order granting 

Puget Sound Power & Light Company 

(Puget) authorization to import up to 50 

Bcf of natural gas over two-years 

beginning with the date of Brst import. 

;-- -A copy of this order-is available for 

inspection and copying in the Office of 

Fuels Programs Docket Room, 3F-05B, 

Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-

9478.The docket room is open between 

the hours of 8 a.m. and 4.30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Issued in"Washington,"DC, July 22, .1991. 

ClifforAE. Tomaazewski, 

ActingDeputy Assistant Secretary for Fuels 

Programs, Office of Fossil Energy.-

[FR Doc 91-17802 Filed 7-25-91; 8:45 am] 

BILLING. CODE 9450-0 l-H 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL 3978-1] 

Proposed Settlement; 'Top-Down" 

BACT Litigation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of propoaedisettlement; 

request for public comment.. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act M'hcT), 

notice is hereby given of aj)rqposed 

settlement of the following cases: -

Inst.at;Jfe^^d^i^and,7 '..i^LcoiiMlialateaj^e,(DiCLJCii^i-a4^£aaw 

Pope>ThiLwa3ii^rNo;8^2030 'X ! 

(DJ3.C.].,(The"proposeaLaSetUement also 

addresses aa'administrative ^petition. 

fileawth:EEAl)ythe.Utility7Air. 

Regulatory Group.) Jhese xases 

involved challenges lo the "top-down" 

process for determining best available 

control-technology under the. prevention 

of significant-deterioration provisions of 

the Clear. Air-Act,42U.aC..7475.. . 

For a periodof thirty;(30)days ,. , 

following the date of publication.of this 

notice, the Agency will receive .written 

comments relating .to the settlement 

irom.persons .who were not named as 

.parties to theiitigathm in<question. EPA 

or the Department of justice may -

withhold-or withdraw-consent to the 

proposed settlement if the comments 

disclose.facts or circumstances that 

indicatethat-such consent is 

inappropriate, improper.inadequate, or 

inconsistent.with the requirements of . 

IheAc t . 

A copy of the setflementihas been 

lodged with the Clerks of the United . 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit and die United 

States District Court for theUistrict of 

Columbia. Copies of the settlement are 

also available from Jill E. Grant-Air and 

Radiation-Division (LE-132A), Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401.M-StreetSW„ 

Washington, DC-20480, (202J24S-4149. 

Written comments should be sent to Jill 

E. Grantatthe above address-and must 

be submitted on or before Augusf28, 

1991. 

' Dated: Jiily 15.1991. .. . 

E. "Donald Elliott, 

Assistant Administrator and General 

Counsel. 

JFR Doc. 91-17795 Filed 7-25T91; 8:45 am] 

DILUNQ CODE 658O-fi0-M 

(ER-FRL-3978-6) 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Availability, 

Responsible Agency 

Office of Federal Activities, General 

Information, (202)382-5073.or.(202)382-

5075.aAvailability of Environmental 

Impact Statements filed July 15, .1991 

.through July 19,1991 pursuant to 40.CFR 

1508.9.' 

EIS No. 910232, Draft EIS, BLM, CAEagleMountain Class JH ..„,. ~.'r-, 

Norihazardous Solid Waste I^dfill 

Project and Specific Plan, Federal Land 

i«17'^£ESSfe^ r.MPv,. 
yedet^V^ff^i^^^^o-^ 1 Fridayi/July 28.1991/Notices'-v,lV••=..»•-•>.!>

 u

.

L

34aff~ 

P.3 

pfci. 

IW>Ca 

Hr*J". a 

Exchange. Right-of-Way Approval, -v 

^section 404 permit, Riverside County, 

TcA. Due: September 24,1991. Contract: 

%larianneWetzel, (619) 323-4421. 

WflSNo. 910233, Final EIS, FHW, IL • 

R,;

 :FAP 302 (formerly FAP 407)/IL-336 

,

y

f Construction. US 24 at Quincy to US 136 

fj. at Carthage, funding and section 404 

ip- permit, Adams and Hancock Counties, 

"'"IL Due: August 28.1991. Contact: Jay W. 

Miller, (217) 492-4600. "J. .".;,' 

EIS No. 910234, Final EIS, AFS, CA 

Kings River Special Management Area 

(SMA). South Fork, Middle Fork, Kings 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Development 

and Management, Implementation Plan, 

Sierra and Sequoia National Forests, 

King Rivers Ranger and Hume Lake 

Ranger'Districts. Fresno County, CA. 

Due: August 26,1991. Contact: Wallace 

McCray, (209) 487-5155. 

EIS No. 910235, Final EIS, AFS, CO 

Divide Creek Unit Coal-Bed Methane 

Project. Continued Development, • 

Leasing, section 404 permit. White River 

. National Forest, Garfield and Mesa 

Counties, CO. Due: September 3,1991. 

Contact Gary Osier, (303) 945-2521. 

EIS No. 910238. Draft EIS, AFS, WA 

Calypso Planning Area (commonly 

called Bourbon Roadless .Area) Timber 

Sales, Implementation, Wind River 

Ranger District, GifTcrd Pinchot National 

Park, Skamania County, WA. Due: 

September 9,1991. Contact: Karl 

Buermeyer, (509) 427-5645." " 

EIS No: 910237, Final EIS, AFS, MT 

East Fortine Timber Sales and Road 

Construction, Implementation, Kootenai 

National Forest, Fortine Ranger District, 

Lincoln County, MT.. Due: August 28, 

1991. Contact Thomas Puchlerz, (408) 

832-4551. ' . 

EIS No. 910238. Draft. AFS, NB 

Bessey Nursery Pest Control 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

Nebraska National Forest, Rocky 

Mountain Region, Thomas County, NB. 

Due: September 9,1991. Contact Sally 

Campbell (503) 326^-7755. :• 

EIS No. 910239, Draft'EIS.'AFS. CO.KS, 

co •2iLt2.'-':r'''\L2'LL./2: 

Pike and San Isabel National Forests/ 

- Comanche and Cimarron National 

Grasslands Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development, Leasing, Several Counties,. 

CO and KS. Due: September 9,1991. 

Contact Ms. Logan Lee, (719) 545-8737. 

'EISNofjhm^mid'^;^B,NY :-\ 

". Rochester.City School Districts /: 

Carthage School #8 Replacement.-

Project. Construction and Operation, .: ,. 

New Information, CDB Grant, City of 

Rochester, Monroe County, NY. Due: 

August 28,1991. Contact Robert 

Barrows. (716) 428-3924. \ 7 

Amended Notices . 

EIS No. 910178. Draft EI& SFW, CA 

Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

Management Plan, Land Acquisition and 

Easement, Possible COE section 10 and 

404 permits, Central Valley, Sacramento 

County, CA. Due: September 1.1991. 

Contact: Peter Jerome, (916) 978-4420. 

Published FR 08-07-91—Review 

period extended. 

EIS No. 910201, Draft EIS, FAA AZ 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International 

Airport Master Plan Update 

Improvements, Runway 8L/28R 

Extension, Funding, City of Phoenix, 

Maricopa County. AZ.Due: September 

19,1991. Contact David Kessler, (213) 

297-1534. 

Published FR 08-21-811—Review 

period extended. 

Dated: July 23,1991. 

William D. Dickerson, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Activities. 

. [FR Doc 91-17796 Filed 7-25-91; 8545 ami 

BILLWQ CODE S5S9-S0-M 

[ER-FRL-3973-71 

Environmental Impact Statements and 

Regulations; Availability ot EPA 

Comments 

Availability of EPA comments 

prepared July 8,1991 through July 12. 

1991 pursuant to the Environmental 

Review Process (ERP), under section 309 

of the Clean Air Act and section 

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act as amended. Requests for . 

copies of EPA comments can be directed 

to the Office of Federal Activities at . 

(202) 382-5078. - , 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in FR 

dated April 5,1991 (56 FR 14098). 

Draft EISs 

ERP No. D-AFS-L6U92-AK Rating LO 

Crystal Mountain Communication 

Site, Designation/Nondesignation, 

Tongass National Forest, Stikine Area, 

AK. 

Summary 

EPA has no objections to the proposed 

: project. However, it cannot be . -

conclusively demonstrated that 

. exposure of the population to radio 

, frequency radiation is without risk. . 

Commitment should be made to exclude 

the public, by fencing and posting any 

areas which could exceed American 

National Standards Institute guideline 

levels. 

ERP No. D-AFS-LB5146-ID Rating EC2 

Van Camp Timber Sales and Winter 

Range Improvements, Road 

Construction/Reconstruction. 

Implementation. Clearwater National 

Forest, Lochaa Ranger District, Idaho 

County, ID. 

Summary 

EPA has environmental concerns that 

are based on the potential for adverse 

air quality effects on a mandatory Class 

I airshed. Additional information is 

needed to describe project monitoring, 

the effectiveness of proposed mitigation 

measures, and describe the effects of the 

project on biodiversity. ;.. 

ERP No. D-COE-E32074-KY Rating EC2 

Lower Cumberland and Tennessee. 

Rivers Navigation Improvements, 

Kentucky Lock Addition. 

Implementation, Nashville District 

Marshall and Livington Counties, KY. 

Summary 

EPA has environmental concerns 

regarding the potential loss of two 

specie3 of endangered mussels due to 

direct construction activities and bases 

resulting from indirect causes attendant 

to operating the new lock. Additional 

information is requested in the final EIS 

on this wetland and mitigation, and 

other issues. 

ERPNo. D-USA-KU047-00RatingEC2 

Fort Wingate Depot and Navajo Depot 

Activity Closures, Realignment of 

Umatilla Depot Activity with transfers 

to Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant 

Mineral County, NV; McKinley County, 

NM; Coconino County, AZ; Morrow and 

Umatilla Counties. OR. 

Summary 

EPA urged the Army to consider the 

preparation of EISs for future base reuse 

plans, to consider transferring lands 

with existing natural resource values to 

resource agencies such as the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and to include'Federal 

and State agencies in the base reuse 

planning process due to the complex 

-hazardous waste cleanup problems that 

exist at many defense bases. EPA noted 

that base closure and realignment . 

actions should not interfere with the 

assessment and remediation of 

hazardous substances contamination at 

the facilities. - ' .-;-: . ..- . 
P.4 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, on July 10, 1989, the American Paper Institute and 

the National Forest Products Association (collectively API) filed 

a petition for review of a May 12, 1989 letter by the 

Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) denying API's administrative petition regard ing--the 

"top-down* process for determining best available control 

technology (BACT) under the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. S 7475. M I v. Reilly., No. 89-1428 (D.C. Cir.). 

WHEREAS, on July 11, 1989, Alabama Power Company, et al. 

(APC), filed a similar petition for review. APC v. Reilly. No. 

89-1429 (D.C. Cir.). The two petitions for review were 

consolidated on December 14, 1989. 

WHEREAS, on July 18, 1989, API filed a complaint concerning 

the "top-down" process for making BACT determinations. API v. 

Reillv. No. 89-2030 (D.D.C). 

WHEREAS, on February 1, 1990, the Utility Air Regulatory 

Group (UARG) submitted an administrative petition concerning 

EPA's policy and practice on BACT determinations. 

WHEREAS, on July 13, 1990, API filed a petition for review 

of an EPA draft guidance document on BACT determinations. API v. 

Reillv. No. 90-1364 (D.C. Cir.). 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve and settle all five of 

the judicial and administrative matters listed above without 

further litigation. 
P.5 

NOW, THEREFORE, without admission of any issues of fact or 

law, or waiver of any claim or defense, either factual or legal, 

the parties agree as follows: , 

BPECIFIC PROVISIONS 

1. EPA agrees to publish in the Federal Register, within 

one hundred eighty (180) days after all of the parties sign this 

settlement agreement, a proposed rule proposing to revise or • 

clarify the regulations defining BACT (currently codified at 40 

C.F.R. SS 51.166(j), 52.21(j)), and proposing to revise or 

clarify how BACT determinations should be made. 

2. EPA agrees to take final action on the proposed rule as 

expeditiously as practicable. Nothing in this settlement 

agreement shall be construed to waive or supersede any procedural 

or substantive requirements imposed by law. 

3. (a) Until EPA takes final action on the proposed rule, 

the current PSD regulations, 40 C.F.R. Pts. 51-52, will remain in 

effect. BACT determinations made pursuant to these regulations 

will continue to be subject to judicial review on a case-by-case 

basis. Any EPA BACT policy statement or interpretation is 

intended only to guide the implementation of BACT under approved 

state new source review programs and is not intended to create 

binding legal rights or obligations and does not have the force 

and effect of law. 55 Fed. Reg. 23,547, 23,548 (June 11, 1990). 

(b) In addition, if there are any significant questions 

regarding the application of the current regulations in specific 

cases, EPA will, upon written request, attempt to resolve any 

- 2 -
P.6 

disputes within the constraints of available resources and in the 

context of the specific facts of the case. 

4. (a) (i) Upon the publication in the Federal Register 

of a proposed rule pursuant to Paragraph 1, API 

shall file a notice or stipulation of voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a)(1) in _P_ v. Reillv. No. 89-2030-

(D.D.C); 

(ii) Upon the publication in the Federal Register 

of a proposed rule pursuant to Paragraph 1, API 

and APC shall file motions to stay the litigation 

in __1 v. Reilly. No. 90-1364 (D.C. Cir.), and API 

v. Reilly. No. 89-1428 and consolidated case (D.C 

Cir.), pending completion of all the activities 

called for in this agreement; 

(iii) Upon completion of all the activities called 

for in this agreement, API and APC shall file 

motions for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. 

R. App. P. 42(b) in ___ v. Reillv. No. 90-1364

 v 

(D.C. Cir.), and API v. Reilly. No. 89-1428 and 

consolidated case (D.C. Cir.); and 

(iv) Upon completion of all the activities called 

for in this agreement, UARG shall withdraw the 

February 1, 1990 administrative petition. In the 

interim, UARG shall take no action whatsoever to 

pursue the administrative petition, and EPA shall 

- 3 -
P.7 

be under no obligation to take action on the 

administrative petition, 

(b) Each party shall bear its own costs, including 

attorneys' fees, in the underlying judicial or administrative 

matters. 

5. The actions EPA agrees to undertake in this settlement 

agreement are not judicially enforceable. If EPA does not take 

final action on the proposed rule within one year after 

publication in the Federal Register, API's, -APC's and UARG's sole 

remedy is to reopen or reactivate the underlying judicial or 

administrative matters. 

6. The parties agree and acknowledge that final approval 

of this settlement agreement is subject to the requirements of 

section 113(g) of the CAA, as added by section 701 of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990. Pursuant to that provision, EPA shall 

publish notice of this settlement agreement in the Federal 

Register, the public shall have at least thirty (30) days to make 

comments, and the Administrator or Attorney General shall 

consider any comments in deciding whether to consent to this v 

agreement. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

7. The parties may agree in writing to modify any 

provision of this settlement agreement. 

8. It is the intent of the parties to this settlement 

agreement that the individual paragraphs of this agreement are 

severable, and should any paragraph of this agreement be declared 

- 4 -
P.8 

by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remaining 

paragraphs of the agreement shall remain in full force and 

effect. 

9. This is the entire settlement agreement between the 

parties with respect to the issues raised in the five judicial 

and administrative matters identified in Paragraph 4 above. All 

prior conversations, meetings, discussions, drafts and writings 

of any kind are specifically superceded by this settlement 

agreement and may not be used by the parties to vary or contest 

the terms of this agreement, or as evidence of the parties' 

intent in entering into this agreement. 

10. This settlement agreement is being entered into so as 

to avoid further litigation. Nothing in this settlement 

agreement shall be construed to constitute an admission of any 

issue of fact, law or liability by any of the parties. 

Specifically, API, APC, and UARG do not waive any claims against 

EPA, and EPA does not waive any defenses to any claims by API, 

APC, and UARG. 

11. Each party shall bear its own costs, including 

attorneys' fees, in monitoring, overseeing or implementing this 

settlement agreement, and in participating in the administrative 

proceedings contemplated by this agreement. 

12. The individuals signing this settlement agreement on 

behalf of the parties hereby certify that they are authorized to 

bind the respective parties to the terms of this agreement. 

// 

- 5 -
P.9 

DATE: %IMI 

DATE: >1WO^ °J [9 S / 

DATE -Mtl 11 

K. Glenn, Esq. 

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 

1123 20th Street, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20036 

(202) 778-3050 

Attorney for API 

ZA. 

Ht^nry Y. Mickel, Esq. 

Hunton & Williams 

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington D.C. 20036 

(202) ^55-1500 

Attorney for APC and UARG 

Scott A. Schachter 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural. Resources Division 

Environmental Defense Section 

P.O. Box 23986 

Washington D.C. 20026-3986 

(202) 514-4632 

Jill E. Grant 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Office of General Counsel (LE-132A) 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington D.C 20460 

(202) 245-4149 

Attorneys for EPA 

- 6 -