21720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit 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, I

certify 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

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA,

427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 July 3, 1995.

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, Incorporation by

reference, Lead.

Dated: April 3, 1995.

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 reads as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(95) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(95) On May 22, 1994, the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management submitted a request to

revise the Indiana State Implementation

Plan by adding a lead plan for Marion

County which consists of a source

specific revision to Title 326 of the

Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)

for Refined Metals.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amendments to 326 IAC 15–1–2

Source-specific provisions. Filed with

the Secretary of State March 25, 1994.

Effective April 24, 1994. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 17, Number 8,

May 1, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95–10810 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5200–7]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program for

Nineteen California Air Pollution

Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the

California Air Resources Board on

behalf of Amador County Air Pollution

Control District (APCD), Butte County

APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa

County APCD, El Dorado County APCD,

Feather River Air Quality Management

District (AQMD), Great Basin Unified

APCD, Imperial County APCD, Kern

County APCD, Lassen County APCD,

Mendocino County APCD, Modoc

County APCD, North Coast Unified

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer

County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,

Tuolumne County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD, California (districts) for

the purpose of complying with Federal

requirements for an approvable State

program to issue operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the nineteen

districts’ submittals and other

supporting information used in

developing the final interim approval

are available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following

location: Operating Permits Section, A–

5–2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPARegion IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information, please contact: Sara

Bartholomew, Operating Permits

Section, A–5–2, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105, (415) 744–1170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (sections 501–507 of the

Clean Air Act (the Act)), and

implementing regulations at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70

require that States develop and submit

operating permits programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by 2 years

after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

On December 8, 1994, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits programs for Amador County

APCD, Butte County APCD, Calaveras

County APCD, Colusa County APCD, El

Dorado County APCD, Feather River

AQMD, Great Basin Unified APCD,

Imperial County APCD, Kern County

APCD, Lassen County APCD,

Mendocino County APCD, Modoc

County APCD, North Coast Unified

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer

County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,

Tuolumne County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD, California. See 54 FR

63289. The EPA received public

comment on the proposal, and is

responding to those comments in this

document and in a separate ‘‘Response

to Comments’’ document that is
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21721

available in the docket. The EPA also

compiled a Technical Support

Document (TSD) for each of the

nineteen districts, which describes each

operating permits program in greater

detail.

In this notice EPA is taking final

action to promulgate interim approval of

the operating permits program for

Amador County APCD, Butte County

APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa

County APCD, El Dorado County APCD,

Feather River AQMD, Great Basin

Unified APCD, Imperial County APCD,

Kern County APCD, Lassen County

APCD, Mendocino County APCD,

Modoc County APCD, North Coast

Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer

County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,

Tuolumne County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD, California.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

EPA received two comment letters on

the proposed rulemaking for the

districts, one from the National

Environmental Development

Associations Clean Air Regulatory

Project (‘‘NEDA/CARP’’), and one from

the American Forest & Paper

Association (‘‘AF&PA’’), both dated

January 9, 1995. The issues discussed in

the December 8, 1994 proposal were not

changed as a result of public comment

with the exception of the

implementation of section 112(g) from

the effective date of the title V program.

EPA’s final action is being revised from

the proposed notice with respect to this

issue. This change is discussed below

along with other issues raised during

the public comment period.

1. 112(g) Implementation

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both

submitted comments regarding EPA’s

proposed approval of the nineteen

California districts’ preconstruction

permitting programs for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) during the

transition period between title V

approval and adoption of a District rule

implementing EPA’s section 112(g)

regulations. In opposition to the

proposed action, the commenters argued

that the nineteen districts should not,

and cannot, implement section 112(g)

until: (1) EPA has promulgated a section

112(g) regulation; and (2) the District

has a section 112(g) program in place.

EPA received many comments

nationally on this issue, and agrees that

it is not reasonable to expect the states

and districts to implement section

112(g) before a rule is issued. EPA has

therefore published an interpretive

notice in the Federal Register regarding

section 112(g) of the Act: 60 FR 8333

(February 14, 1995). This notice outlines

EPA’s revised interpretation of 112(g)

applicability prior to EPA’s issuing the

final 112(g) rule. The notice states that

major source modifications,

constructions, and reconstructions will

not be subject to 112(g) requirements

until the final rule is promulgated. EPA

expects to issue the 112(g) final rule in

September 1995.

The notice further explains that EPA

is considering whether the effective date

of section 112(g) should be delayed

beyond the date of promulgation of the

Federal rule so as to allow States and

Districts time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule, and that

EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until

EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of section 112(g), the

nineteen districts must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption

of implementing District regulations.

For this reason, EPA is proposing to

approve the nineteen districts’

preconstruction review programs as a

mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period between

promulgation of the section 112(g) rule

and adoption by the nineteen districts of

rules specifically designed to implement

section 112(g). However, since approval

is intended solely to confirm that the

districts have mechanisms to implement

section 112(g) during the transition

period, the approval itself will be

without effect if EPA decides in the

final section 112(g) rule that there will

be no transition period. The EPA is

limiting the duration of its approval of

the use of preconstruction programs to

implement 112(g) to 12 months

following promulgation by EPA of the

section 112(g) rule.

2. Insignificant Activities

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both assert

that EPA lacks the legal footing to reject

the districts’ present ‘‘insignificant

levels,’’ and that EPA has no authority

to hold out ‘‘suggested’’ emission levels

as a threshold for receiving full

approval.

EPA disagrees that it lacks authority

to reject inappropriate or unsupported

insignificance levels, or to articulate on

a program-by-program basis levels that

it definitely would accept. Part 70

allows States to deem certain activities

or emission levels insignificant if they

are listed in the program submitted to

EPA and approved by EPA, but does not

grant States authority to create new

exemptions without EPA approval.

Section 70.4(b)(2) requires the submittal

of criteria used to determine

insignificant activities, and § 70.5(c)

does not allow States to create an

insignificant activities permit

exemption if the exemption will

interfere with the imposition of

applicable requirements or the

collection of fees. In addition, part 70

explicitly authorizes EPA to approve

insignificant activities based on

emission levels (§ 70.5(c)). EPA has the

legal authority to reject district

provisions which contravene these part

70 requirements.

As stated in the proposal, most of the

nineteen programs provided EPA with

no criteria or information on the level of

emissions of activities on the districts’

exemption lists. In addition, the specific

insignificant activities provisions

submitted by the districts have raised

concerns with EPA regarding the

districts’ ability to ensure that

applicable requirements are included in

permits. None of the nineteen districts

provided EPA with a demonstration to

the contrary. For these reasons, the

nineteen districts’ lists of insignificant

activities are not acceptable.

In the proposed rulemaking EPA

suggested insignificance levels that the

Agency would find acceptable even

without a further demonstration.

Neither of the commenters specifically

addressed these sugested insignificance

levels. EPA would like to note that the

nineteen districts have the flexibility to

modify their regulations and submit

criteria for EPA approval of new

exemptions, as long as each district

demonstrates, or EPA is otherwise

satisfied, that such alternative emission

levels are insignificant compared to the

level of emissions and types of units

that are permitted or subject to

applicable requirements.

3. Public Petitions to EPA

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both

registered their concern regarding the

public petition requirements,

notification and other procedural

requirements, stating that they believe

these requirements will thwart efforts in

California to develop market incentive

approaches to emissions reductions.

Provisions for public participation,

notification and public petitions are

required under title V of the Clean Air

Act (CAA 502(b)(6) for public

participation, and CAA 505(b)(2) for

public petitions), and are therefore

included in part 70, the regulations that

implement title V. EPA believes public

participation does not preclude a

district from developing market based

incentive programs.
21722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4. Compliance Certification

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both

contend that EPA has misread its own

rule in requiring that the full text of the

responsible official’s certification be

included in both the application content

and permit content. They argue that the

provision of § 70.5(d) sets out the terms

and conditions for any certification of

an application form, report or

compliance made pursuant to the rules,

but does not establish a signatory

statement that must be attested to by the

responsible official to the exclusion of

all other statements (emphasis in

comment letters).

EPA disagrees with the above

comment. Section 70.5 requires that:

‘‘This certification * * * shall state

that, based on information and belief

formed after reasonable inquiry, the

statements and information in the

document are true, accurate, and

complete’’ (emphasis added). This

indicates that it is not sufficient merely

for the responsible official to sign the

certification; the certificate must state

that he or she considered the issue

carefully. The statement must contain

the essential elements of § 70.5(d), and

include the words quoted above. EPA

does not rule out having a pre-printed

statement on the certificate for

convenience.

5. Deviation Reporting

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both

contend that it is necessary for EPA to

revise several of its earlier interim

approval notices, in which the Agency

conditioned final approval on including

a definition of ‘‘prompt’’ in the state

operating permits program, in order to

provide a consistent application of the

appropriate interpretation of its rules.

In the proposed interim approval

notice EPA stated that the nineteen

districts’ regulations should define the

meaning of ‘‘prompt’’ as used in the

requirement found at 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B), which requires

‘‘prompt’’ reporting of deviations from

applicable requirements. The Agency

indicated that an acceptable alternative

to defining in the regulation what

constitutes ‘‘prompt’’ is to define

‘‘prompt’’ in each individual permit.

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both

support this approach. EPA has

consistently asserted that this is an

acceptable alternative to defining

‘‘prompt’’ in the body of the permitting

regulations, and sees no need to revisit

past interim approval actions to clarify

this interpretation of the definition of

what constitutes ‘‘prompt’’ reporting of

deviations from applicable

requirements.

6. Potential to Emit

In the proposed rulemaking, EPA

required Amador and Tuolumne

counties to revise the definition of

‘‘potential to emit’’ in their rules to

clarify that only federally-enforceable

limitations may be considered in

determining a source’s potential to emit.

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both argue

that limitations based on state

requirements, as well as federallyenforceable limitations, should be

considered in determining the potential

to emit.

EPA’s requirement that Amador and

Tuolumne revise their definitions of the

term ‘‘potential to emit’’ is based upon

the definition of that term found in 40

CFR 70.2. Section 70.2 defines

‘‘potential to emit’’ as the maximum

capacity of a stationary source to emit

any air pollutant under its physical and

operational design. The definition

further provides, however, that a

physical and operational limit on

potential to emit is considered to be part

of the source’s design if it is enforceable

by EPA. Since the Amador and

Tuolumne rules do not conform to this

critical definition, the districts must

revise their programs to clarify that only

federally enforceable restrictions can

provide a legal limitation on a source’s

potential to emit.

B. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating interim

approval of the operating permits

programs submitted by the California

Air Resources Board on behalf of

Amador County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993), Butte County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 16,

1993), Calaveras County APCD

(complete submittal received on October

31, 1994), Colusa County APCD

(complete submittal received on

February 24, 1994), El Dorado County

APCD (complete submittal received on

November 16, 1993), Feather River

AQMD (complete submittal received on

November 16, 1993), Great Basin

Unified APCD (complete submittal

received on January 12, 1994), Imperial

County APCD (complete submittal

received on March 12, 1994), Kern

County APCD (complete submittal

received on November 16, 1993), Lassen

County APCD (complete submittal

received on January 12, 1994),

Mendocino County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993), Modoc County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993), North Coast Unified AQMD

(complete submittal received on

February 24, 1994), Northern Sierra

AQMD (complete submittal received on

June 6, 1994), Northern Sonoma County

APCD (complete submittal received on

January 12, 1994), Placer County APCD

(complete submittal received on

December 27, 1993), Siskiyou County

APCD (complete submittal received on

December 6, 1993), Tuolumne County

APCD (complete submittal received on

November 16, 1993), and Yolo-Solano

AQMD (complete submittal received on

October 14, 1994), California.

The nineteen districts must make the

changes specified in the proposed

rulemaking, under II.C., District Title V

Interim Approval Issues Common to All

Nineteen Districts and Section III.,

Individual District Title V Interim

Approval Issues, in order to be granted

full approval.

The scope of the nineteen districts’

part 70 programs approved in this

notice applies to all part 70 sources (as

defined in the approved program)

within the districts, except any sources

of air pollution over which an Indian

Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR

55813, 55815–55818 (Nov. 9, 1994). The

term ‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined under

the Act as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band,

nation, or other organized group or

community, including any Alaska

Native village, which is Federally

recognized as eligible for the special

programs and services provided by the

United States to Indians because of their

status as Indians.’’ See section 302(r) of

the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962

(Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21,

1993).

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends until June 3, 1997.

During this interim approval period, the

nineteen districts are protected from

sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to

promulgate, administer and enforce a

Federal operating permits program in

any of these districts. Permits issued

under a program with interim approval

have full standing with respect to part

70, and the 1-year time period for

submittal of permit applications by

subject sources begins upon the

effective date of this interim approval,

as does the 3-year time period for

processing the initial permit

applications.

If any of the nineteen districts fails to

submit a complete corrective program

for full approval by December 3, 1996,

EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If any of the

districts then fail to submit a corrective

program that EPA finds complete before

the expiration of that 18-month period,

EPA will apply sanctions to that district

as required by section 502(d)(2) of the

Act, which will remain in effect until

EPA determines that the district has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21723

corrected the deficiency by submitting a

complete corrective program.

If EPA disapproves any of the

nineteen districts’ complete corrective

program, EPA will apply sanctions to

that district or districts as required by

section 502(d)(2) on the date 18 months

after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

district or districts has submitted a

revised program and EPA has

determined that the district or districts

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

the disapproval.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the expiration of an interim

approval period if any of the nineteen

districts has not timely submitted a

complete corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective

program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to any of the

nineteen districts’ programs by the

expiration of this interim approval and

that expiration occurs after November

15, 1995, EPA must promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for those districts

lacking full approval, upon interim

approval expiration.

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the State or

District’s program contain adequate

authorities, adequate resources for

implementation, and an expeditious

compliance schedule, which are also

requirements under part 70. Therefore,

the EPA is also promulgating approval

under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR

63.91 of the nineteen districts’ programs

for receiving delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from

Federal standards as promulgated. This

program for delegations only applies to

sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the nineteen districts’

submittals and other information relied

upon for the final interim approval,

including two public comments

received and reviewed by EPA on the

proposal, are contained in docket

number CA–NONGR19–94–01–OPS,

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this final

interim approval. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by adding the entry for California in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

California

The following district programs were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board on behalf of:

(a) Amador County Air Pollution

Control District (APCD) (complete

submittal received on September 30,

1994); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Butte County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 16,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(d) Calaveras County APCD (complete

submittal received on October 31, 1994);

interim approval effective on June 2,

1995; interim approval expires June 3,

1997.

(e) Colusa County APCD (complete

submittal received on February 24,

1994); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(f) El Dorado County APCD (complete

submittal received on November 16,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(g) Feather River Air Quality

Management District (AQMD) (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(h) [Reserved]

(i) Great Basin Unified APCD

(complete submittal received on January

12, 1994); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(j) Imperial County APCD (complete

submittal received on March 24, 1994);

interim approval effective on June 2,

1995; interim approval expires June 3,

1997.

(k) Kern County APCD (complete

submittal received on November 16,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(l) [Reserved]

(m) Lassen County APCD (complete

submittal received on January 12, 1994);

interim approval effective on June 2,

1995; interim approval expires June 3,

1997.

(n) [Reserved]

(o) Mendocino County APCD

(complete submittal received on

December 27, 1993); interim approval

effective on June 2, 1995; interim

approval expires June 3, 1997.

(p) Modoc County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(q) [Reserved]

(r) [Reserved]

(s) North Coast Unified AQMD

(complete submittal received on

February 24, 1994); interim approval

effective on June 2, 1995; interim

approval expires June 3, 1997.

(t) Northern Sierra AQMD (complete

submittal received on June 6, 1994);

interim approval effective on June 2,

1995; interim approval expires June 3,

1997.

(u) Northern Sonoma County APCD

(complete submittal received on January

12, 1994); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(v) Placer County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 1997.

(w) [Reserved]
21724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA promulgated such designations pursuant to

Section 107(d)(4) of the Act (56 FR 56694;

November 6, 1991).

(x) [Reserved]

(y) [Reserved]

(z) [Reserved]

(aa) [Reserved]

(bb) [Reserved]

(cc) Siskiyou County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 6,

1993); interim approval effective on

June 2, 1995; interim approval expires

June 3, 997.

(dd) [Reserved]

(ee) [Reserved]

(ff) Tuolumne County APCD

(complete submittal received on

November 16, 1993); interim approval

effective on June 2, 1995; interim

approval expires June 3, 1997.

(gg) [Reserved]

(hh) Yolo-Solano AQMD (complete

submittal received on October 14, 1994);

interim approval effective on June 2,

1995; interim approval expires June 3,

1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10825 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 80

[AMS–FRL–5201–4]

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel

Additives: Standards for Reformulated

and Conventional Gasoline Withdrawal

of Reformulated Gasoline Program

Extension in Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of final rule.

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act, as

amended, directs the Administrator of

EPA to apply the prohibition against the

sale of conventional gasoline under

EPA’s reformulated gasoline (RFG)

regulations in an ozone nonattainment

area upon the application of the

governor of the state in which the

nonattainment area is located. On

December 29, 1994, EPA issued a direct

final rule (DFRM) extending the

prohibition set forth in section 211(k)(5)

of the Act to three moderate ozone nonattainment areas in Wisconsin,

including those counties in the federal

RFG program. EPA is withdrawing the

direct final rule, because the governor

has withdrawn the three counties from

the federal RFG program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

April 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Materials directly relevant

to the direct final rule are contained in

Public Docket No. A–94–46, located at

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460. Other materials relevant to

the reformulated gasoline final rule are

contained in Public Dockets A–91–02

and A–92–12. The docket may be

inspected from 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. As provided in

40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be

charged by EPA for copying docket

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joann Jackson Stephens, U.S. EPA

(RDSD–12), Regulation Development

and Support Division, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:

(313) 668–4507. To Request Copies of

This Notice Contact: Delores Frank, U.S.

EPA (RDSD–12), Regulation

Development and Support Division,

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI

48105. Telephone: (313) 668–4295.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of

this action is available on the EPA’s

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) Technology

Transfer Network Bulletin Board System

(TTNBBS). The service is free of charge,

except for the cost of the phone call.

The TTNBBS can be accessed with a

dial-in phone line and a high-speed

modem per the following information:

TTN BBS: 919–541–5742

(1200–14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits,

1 stop bit)

Voice Help-line: 919–541–5384

Accessible via Internet:

TELNETttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov

Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to

12:00 Noon ET

When first signing on, the user will be

required to answer some basic

informational questions for registration

purposes. After completing the

registration process, proceed through

the following series of menus:

<T> GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL

AREAS (Bulletin Boards)

<M> OMS

<K> Rulemaking and Reporting

<3> Fuels

<9> Reformulated gasoline

A list of ZIP files will be shown, all of

which are related to the RFG rulemaking

process. To download any file, type the

instructions below and transfer

according to the appropriate software on

your computer:

<D>ownload, <P>rotocol, <E>xamine,

<N>ew, <L>ist, or <H>elp Selection or

<CR> to exit: D filename.zip

You will be given a list of transfer

protocols from which you must choose

one that matches with the terminal

software on your own computer. The

software should then be opened and

directed to receive the file using the

same protocol. Programs and

instructions for de-archiving

compressed files can be found via

<S>ystems Utilities from the top menu,

under <A>rchivers/de-archivers. After

getting the files you want onto your

computer, you can quit the TTN BBS

with the <G>oodbye command. Please

note that due to differences between the

software used to develop the document

and the software into which the

document may be downloaded, changes

in format, page length, etc. may occur.

I. Background

As part of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, Congress added a

new subsection (k) to section 211 of the

Clean Air Act. Subsection (k) prohibits

the sale of gasoline that EPA has not

certified as reformulated in the nine

worst ozone nonattainment areas

beginning January 1, 1995. EPA

published final regulations for the RFG

program on February 16, 1994 and on

August 2, 1994. See 59 FR 7716 and 59

FR 39258. Corrections and clarifications

to the final RFG regulations were

published July 20, 1994. See 59 FR

36944.

EPA has determined the nine covered

areas to be the metropolitan areas

including Los Angeles, Houston, New

York City, Baltimore, Chicago, San

Diego, Philadelphia, Hartford and

Milwaukee. Any other ozone

nonattainment area classified under

subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the Act

as a Marginal, Moderate, Serious or

Severe may be included in the program

at the request of the Governor of the

state in which the area is located.

Section 211(k)(6)(A) provides that upon

the application of a Governor, EPA shall

apply the prohibition against the sale of

conventional gasoline (gasoline EPA has

not certified as reformulated) in any

area classified as an ozone

nonattainment area classified as an

ozone nonattainment area 1 and EPA is

to publish a governor’s application in

the Federal Register. To date, EPA has

received and published applications

from the Mayor of the District of

Columbia and the Governors of the

following states with ozone

nonattainment areas: Connecticut,

Delaware, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode

Island, Virginia, Texas, and Kentucky.

Since submitting opt-in applications,

some states (Pennsylvania, Maine, and

New York) have recently requested to

opt-out of the RFG program for various

reasons.