27064 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(4) Then south along State Highway 9

approximately 44 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Burn Road) at the town of

Arlington, T31N/R5E;

(5) Then south, southeast along Burn

Road approximately 11 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 92,

T30N/R6E;

(6) Then south along State Highway

92 approximately 3 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed light duty

road (referred to in the petition as

Machias Hartford Road), T29N/R6E;

(7) Then south along Machias

Hartford Road approximately 4 miles to

its intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Lake Roesiger Road), on the

U.S.G.S. map ‘‘Wenatchee,’’ T29N/R7E;

(8) Then east along Lake Roesiger

Road approximately 3.5 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Woods Creek Road), T29N/

R7E;

(9) Then south along Woods Creek

Road approximately 10.5 miles to its

intersection with U.S. Highway 2 in the

town of Monroe, T27N/R7E;

(10) Then west along U.S. Highway 2

approximately 1⁄2 mile to its intersection

with State Highway 203, T27N/R6E;

(11) Then south along State Highway

203 approximately 24 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Preston-Fall City Road), at

the town of Fall City, T24N/R7E;

(12) Then southwest along PrestonFall City Road approximately 4 miles to

its intersection with Interstate Highway

90 at the town of Preston, T24N/R7E;

(13) Then east along Interstate

Highway 90 approximately 3 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 18,

T23N/R7E;

(14) Then southwest along State

Highway 18 approximately 7 miles to its

intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as 276th Avenue SE), T23N/

R6E;

(15) Then south along 276th Avenue

SE approximately 5 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 516 at

the town of Georgetown, T22N/R6E;

(16) Then west along State Highway

516 approximately 2 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 169 at

the town of Summit on the U.S.G.S.

map, ‘‘Seattle,’’ (shown in greater detail

on the U.S.G.S. map, ‘‘Auburn’’), T22N/

R6E;

(17) Then south along State Highway

169 approximately 11.5 miles to its

intersection with State Highway 410 at

the town of Enumclaw on the U.S.G.S.

map, ‘‘Wenatchee,’’ (shown in greater

detail on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Enumclaw’’), T20N/R6E;

(18) Then southwest approximately 5

miles along State Highway 410 until its

intersection with State Highway 165 on

the U.S.G.S. map, ‘‘Seattle,’’ (shown in

greater detail on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Buckley’’), T19N/R6E;

(19) Then southwest on State

Highway 165 until its intersection with

State Highway 162 at the town of

Cascade Junction on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Seattle’’ (shown in greater detail on the

U.S.G.S. Map, ‘‘Buckley’’), T19N/R6E;

(20) Then southwest along State

Highway 162 approximately 8 miles to

its intersection with an unnamed

secondary road (referred to in the

petition as Orville Road E.), T19N/R5E;

(21) Then south along Orville Road E.,

approximately 8 miles to its intersection

with the CMSTP&P railroad at the town

of Kapowsin, on the U.S.G.S. map,

‘‘Hoquiam,’’ T17N/R5E;

(22) Then south along the CMSTP&P

railroad approximately 17 miles to

where it crosses the Pierce County line

at the town of Elbe, T15N/R5E;

(23) Then west along the Pierce

County line approximately 1 mile to the

eastern tip of Thurston County, T15N/

R5E;

(24) Then west along the Thurston

County line approximately 38 miles to

where it crosses Interstate Highway 5,

T15N/R2W;

(25) Then north along Interstate

Highway 5 approximately 18 miles to its

intersection with U.S. Highway 101 at

the town of Tumwater on the U.S.G.S.

map ‘‘Seattle,’’ T18N/R2W;

(26) Then northwest along U.S.

Highway 101 approximately 18 miles to

its intersection with State Highway 3 at

the town of Shelton, T20N/R3W;

(27) Then northeast along State

Highway 3 approximately 24 miles to

where it crosses the Kitsap County line,

T23N/R1W;

(28) Then north along the Kitsap

County line approximately 3 miles to

the point where it turns west, T23N/

R1W;

(29) Then west along the Kitsap

County line approximately 11 miles to

the point where it turns north, T23N/

R3W;

(30) Then continuing west across

Hood Canal approximately 1 mile to

join with U.S. Highway 101 just south

of the mouth of an unnamed creek

(referred to in the petition as Jorsted

Creek), T23N/R3W;

(31) Then north along U.S. Highway

101 approximately 40 miles to the point

where it turns west at the town of

Gardiner on the U.S.G.S. map

‘‘Victoria,’’ T30N/R2W;

(32) Then west along U.S. Highway

101 approximately 32 miles to where it

crosses the Elwha River, T30N/R7W;

(33) Then north along the Elwha River

approximately 6 miles to its mouth,

T31N/R7W;

(34) Then continuing north across the

Strait of Juan de Fuca approximately 5

miles to the Clallam County line, T32N/

R7W;

(35) Then northeast along the Clallam

County line approximately 14 miles to

the southwestern tip of San Juan

County, T32N/R4W;

(36) Then northeast along the San

Juan County line approximately 51

miles to the northern tip of San Juan

County, T38N/R3W;

(37) Then northwest along the

Whatcom County line approximately 19

miles to the western tip of Whatcom

County, T41N/R5W;

(38) Then east along the Whatcom

County line approximately 58 miles to

the beginning.

Signed: May 3, 1995.

Daniel R. Black,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 95–12410 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[IN001; FRL–5209–6]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim

Approval of Operating Permits

Program; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the operating permits

program submitted by Indiana for the

purpose of complying with Federal

requirements which mandate that States

develop, and submit to EPA, programs

for issuing operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

June 21, 1995. Comments should be

addressed to the contact indicated

below.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the

proposed interim approval are available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: EPA

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

AR–18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27065

contact Sam Portanova at (312) 886–

3189 to arrange a time if inspection of

the submittal is desired.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam

Portanova, AR–18J, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–3189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

As required under Title V of the Clean

Air Act (‘‘the Act’’) as amended (1990),

EPA has promulgated regulations which

define the minimum elements of an

approvable State operating permits

program and the corresponding

standards and procedures by which the

EPA will approve, oversee, and

withdraw approval of State operating

permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July

21, 1992)). These regulations are

codified at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 70. Title V

requires States to develop, and submit

to EPA, programs for issuing these

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources.

The Act requires that States develop

and submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. 40 CFR 70.4(e)(2), however,

allows the Administrator to extend the

review period of a State’s submittal if

the State’s submission is materially

altered during the 1-year review period.

This additional review period may not

extend beyond 1 year following receipt

of the revised submission.

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.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The EPA is proposing to grant interim

approval to the operating permits

program submitted by Indiana on

August 10, 1994. Indiana’s program

substantially meets the requirements of

part 70; however, certain issues must be

addressed in the State’s submittal before

EPA can grant full approval. This notice

will outline the corrections necessary

for full approval.

For more detailed information on the

analysis of the State’s submission,

please refer to the part 70 Operating

Permits Program Review Checklist and

technical support document (TSD)

included with the docket of this interim

approval.

1. Support Materials

An August 5, 1994, letter from Kathy

Prosser, Commissioner of the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM), to Valdas V.

Adamkus, Regional Administrator of

EPA Region 5, accompanying the State’s

submittal, names the IDEM as the state

agency responsible for the

administration of Indiana’s Title V

operating permit program throughout

the entire state.

The Indiana Title V submittal

contains all the elements required by 40

CFR 70.4(b). Also included in the State’s

submittal is a narrative description of

the State’s program summarizing how

the State will meet the requirements of

part 70 and a legal opinion from Pamela

Carter, Attorney General of the State of

Indiana, certifying that the legal

authority exists for the State to

administer and enforce the Title V

program.

The State’s Title V program

regulations are found in the Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) under 326

IAC 2–7. Although the Indiana Title V

submittal contains regulations other

than 326 IAC 2–7, this notice is only

taking action on 326 IAC 2–7.

Supporting legislative authority is found

in the Indiana Code (IC) under IC 4–21,

IC 5–14, IC 13–1, IC 13–6, and IC 13–

7.

2. Regulations and Program

Implementation

a. Applicability

The Indiana program meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.2 and 70.3

for applicability in 326 IAC 2–7–2.

Please refer to the TSD, included with

the docket of this interim approval, for

more information regarding the

language in 326 IAC 2–7–2.

b. Permit Applications

The Indiana program, in 326 IAC 2–

7–4, substantially meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.5 for permit

applications. The Indiana program

submittal also includes complete permit

application forms.

A deficiency in the State’s permit

application requirements exists,

however, concerning insignificant

activities, which are defined in 326 IAC

2–7–1(20). The following are the

insignificant activity threshold levels for

the Indiana program:

5 pounds per hour (lb/hr) or 25 pounds per

day (lb/day) of particulate matter (PM);

10 lb/hr or 50 lb/day of sulfur dioxide (SO2);

5 lb/hr or 25 lb/day of nitrogen oxides (NOX);

3 lb/hr or 15 lb/day of volatile organic

compounds (VOC);

25 lb/day of carbon monoxide (CO);

0.6 tons per year (tpy) or 3.29 lb/day of lead

or lead compounds measured as elemental

lead.

A source must meet both emission

levels (i.e., lb/hr and lb/day) to qualify

for the exemption. These levels equal a

maximum potential of 2.74 tpy of VOC,

4.56 tpy of CO, NOX, and PM, and 9.13

tpy of SO2. In addition, 326 IAC 2–1–

1(b)(1)(H) exempts modifications to

major sources of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) which will increase

allowable emissions by less than 4 tpy

for one HAP or 10 tpy of any

combination of HAPs from the Title V

program.

EPA is granting full approval to the

VOC, CO, NOX, and PM insignificant

activity levels. EPA is granting interim

approval to the SO2 and HAP

insignificant activity levels. If EPA’s

concerns for the SO2 and HAP levels are

addressed in the State’s final regulations

before final action on this notice, then

EPA can fully approve Indiana’s SO2

and HAP insignificant activities.

Alternatively, if the State does not

address EPA’s concerns before final

action on this notice, then EPA’s final

action will include an interim approval

on this issue. The rationale for the

interim approval status is provided in

the TSD included with the docket of

this interim approval.

c. Permit Issuance, Renewal,

Reopenings and Revisions

The Indiana program meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 and 70.8

for permit issuance, renewal,

reopenings, and public participation

and the requirements of 40 CFR

70.4(b)(12) for operational flexibility.

Please refer to the TSD, included with

the docket of this interim approval, for

more information regarding the

language in 326 IAC 2–7–11 for

administrative permit amendments.

An interim approval issue exists,

however, with respect to the State’s

threshold levels for group processing of

permits. The Indiana program’s

threshold level for minor permit

modification (MPM) group processing

eligibility is not as stringent as the part

70 threshold level. According to 326

IAC 2–7–12(c)(1)(B), Indiana’s

thresholds are:

PM = 5 lb/hr or 25 lb/day (4.56 tpy)

SO2 = 10 lb/hr or 50 lb/day (9.13 tpy)

NOX = 5 lb/hr or 25 lb/day (4.56 tpy)

VOC = 3 lb/hr or 15 lb/day (2.74 tpy)
27066 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

CO = 25 lb/hr or 125 lb/day (22.81 tpy)

Lead = 0.6 tpy

HAP = 4 tpy of one HAP/10 tpy of any

combination of HAPs

40 CFR 70.7(e)(3)(i) states that the

threshold for allowing group processing

of permit modifications are

modifications that collectively emit: 10

percent of the emissions allowed by the

permit for the unit for which the change

is requested; or 20 percent of the

applicable definition of major source; or

5 tons per year; whichever is least. EPA

is proposing interim approval for the

Indiana threshold levels. To obtain full

approval, Indiana must establish a

group processing threshold consistent

with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(3)(i) or demonstrate

that an alternative threshold would

alleviate severe administrative burden

and would result in trivial

environmental impact. If EPA’s

concerns are addressed by a change in

the State’s final regulations or by a State

demonstration before final action on

this notice, then EPA can fully approve

the State’s group processing threshold

levels. Alternatively, if the State does

not address EPA’s concerns before final

action on this notice, then EPA’s final

action will include an interim approval

on this issue.

d. Permit Content

Another major component of

Indiana’s program concerns the contents

of a Title V permit. The program

substantially meets the requirements of

40 CFR 70.6. A Title V permit will

incorporate applicable requirements of

existing State Implementation Plans

(SIP), as well as any future applicable

requirements promulgated by EPA.

Authority exists in 326 IAC 2–7–13 to

develop general permits covering

numerous similar sources, except for

sources subject to the Acid Rain

Program. These general permits are

targeted for future development.

326 IAC 2–7–5(1)(F) states that

emission limitations applicable to startup, shutdown and emergency bypasses

shall be addressed on a case-by-case

basis in the permit. Sources that request

these limitations must do so in their

Title V permit application. In response

to EPA’s concern that such a provision

could be interpreted to enable the State

to issue a permit which would violate

a SIP requirement, Indiana has provided

assurance that it will issue only those

permits that comply with all applicable

requirements of the Indiana SIP. See

letter of April 28, 1995, from Kathy

Prosser, Commissioner of the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management, to Valdas Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 5.

Another component of permit content

is the length of time in which a source

must notify the permitting authority to

report a deviation from a permit

condition. Part 70 of the operating

permits regulations requires prompt

reporting of deviations from the permit

requirements. 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)

requires the permitting authority to

define ‘‘prompt’’ in relation to the

degree and type of deviation likely to

occur and the applicable requirements.

Although the permit program

regulations should define ‘‘prompt’’ for

purposes of administrative efficiency

and clarity, an acceptable alternative is

to define the term in each individual

permit. Prompt reporting, however,

must be more frequent than the

semiannual reporting requirement,

given this is a distinct reporting

obligation under 40 CFR

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Indiana addresses the

issue of prompt reporting in 326 IAC 2–

7–5(3)(C)(ii). Because Indiana did not

actually define ‘‘prompt,’’ EPA may veto

permits that do not contain sufficiently

prompt reporting requirements for

deviations. EPA and Indiana will

address the appropriate definition of

‘‘prompt’’ in the Implementation

Agreement that will be developed for

the Indiana program.

e. Public and EPA Comment Periods

326 IAC 2–7–18 provides for the

public comment period for a draft

permit and the EPA review of a

proposed permit to occur concurrently.

EPA will receive a copy of a draft permit

when it is issued for a 30-day comment

period for the public and affected States.

If comments are received, but the

State does not change the permit, the

State will notify EPA and send to EPA

a signed copy of the draft permit that

will then be the proposed permit. EPA

has up to 15 days after the receipt of the

proposed permit to notify the State if it

wishes to have a full 45-day review

period for the proposed permit.

Otherwise, EPA’s comment period ends

45 days after it first receives the draft

permit. Please refer to the TSD,

included with the docket of this interim

approval, for more information

regarding Indiana’s public comment

procedures.

f. Enforcement

The Indiana program meets the

enforcement authority requirements of

40 CFR 70.11. The Indiana statute

addresses these requirements in IC 13–

7–5, 13–7–11, 13–7–12, and 13–7–13.

The Indiana Attorney General’s legal

opinion certifies that the Indiana statue

adequately meets the requirements of 40

CFR 70.11.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

According to 326 IAC 2–7–19, Indiana

will charge part 70 sources a $1500 flat

fee plus $33 per ton of actual emissions

of each regulated pollutant. If the source

emits over 100 tpy of both VOC and

NOX and is located in Lake or Porter

County, it shall not pay more than

$200,000 in Title V fees. All other

sources shall not pay more than

$150,000. Sources will have to pay 50

percent of this amount in 1994 and 75

percent of this amount in 1995. The

dollar amounts will be adjusted by the

Consumer Price Index beginning in

1996. Indiana has demonstrated in the

Title V program submittal that its fee

schedule will collect adequate fees to

satisfy the EPA presumptive minimum

amount beginning in 1996.

Indiana’s fee schedule for 1995 will

be $24.75 per ton of emissions plus a

$1,125 flat fee per source. This is below

the EPA presumptive minimum fee

amount. Indiana’s program, however,

will be in effect for only a portion of

1995 and Indiana has demonstrated that

it will provide enough of the 1995 fee

schedule for the post-program approval

period to meet the EPA presumptive

minimum amount. Please refer to the

TSD, included with the docket of this

interim approval, for more information

regarding the State’s fee demonstration.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and/or Commitments for

Section 112 Implementation

Indiana has demonstrated in its Title

V program submittal adequate legal

authority to implement and enforce all

section 112 requirements through Title

V permits. This legal authority is

contained in Indiana’s enabling

legislation and in regulatory provisions

defining ‘‘applicable requirements’’ and

stating that the permit must incorporate

all applicable requirements. EPA has

determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow Indiana to issue

permits that assure compliance with all

section 112 requirements.

The EPA is accepting the above legal

authority as an adequate demonstration

that Indiana is able to carry out all

section 112 activities relative to Title V

sources. For further rationale on this

interpretation, please refer to the TSD

accompanying this rulemaking and the

April 13, 1993, guidance memorandum

titled ‘‘Title V Program Approval

Criteria for section 112 activities,’’

signed by John Seitz, Director of the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27067

b. Implementation of section 112(g)

Upon Program Approval

As a condition of approval of the Title

V program, Indiana is required to

implement section 112(g) of the Act.

Indiana has promulgated a ‘‘MACT

Rule’’ in 326 IAC 2–1–3.3. The purpose

of this regulation is to provide Indiana

the necessary mechanism to implement

section 112(g). 326 IAC 2–1–3.3(e) states

that permit conditions necessary to

implement the provisions of 326 IAC 2–

1–3.3 shall be established in 326 IAC 2–

1–3. 326 IAC 2–1–3 is the Indiana NSR

construction permit regulation, which

has been approved into the Indiana SIP.

326 IAC 2–1–3.3 applies to new or

reconstructed sources emitting greater

than 10 tpy of a HAP or 25 tpy of any

combination of HAPs. The regulation

also applies to modifications to HAP

sources which emit 4 tpy of one HAP or

10 tpy of any combination of HAPs.

According to the Federal Register

notice published on February 14, 1995,

60 FR 8333, the requirements of section

112(g) will not become effective until

after EPA has promulgated a regulation

addressing that provision. The Federal

Register notice sets forth in detail the

rationale for this interpretation. At the

time of Indiana’s program submittal and

EPA’s subsequent review period, EPA

has not promulgated a federal regulation

containing the specific requirements of

section 112(g).

The section 112(g) interpretive notice

explains that EPA is still considering

whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the

date of promulgation of the Federal

regulation so as to allow States time to

adopt regulations implementing the

Federal regulation, 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), Indiana must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

Federal section 112(g) regulation and

adoption of implementing State

regulations. Imposition of case-by-case

determinations of maximum achievable

control technology (MACT) or offsets

under section 112(g) will require the use

of a mechanism for establishing

federally enforceable restrictions on a

source-specific basis.

For this reason, EPA is proposing

approval of Indiana’s MACT regulation

(326 IAC 2–1–3.3) under the authority of

Title V and part 70 solely for the

purpose of implementing section 112(g)

during the transition period between

promulgation of the section 112(g)

regulation and adoption by Indiana of

regulations implementing the provisions

of section 112(g). However, since the

approval is for the single purpose of

providing a mechanism 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) regulation that

sources are not subject to the

requirements of the regulation until

State regulations are adopted. The EPA

is limiting the duration of this proposal

to 18 months following promulgation by

EPA of the section 112(g) regulation.

Once promulgated by EPA, the 112(g)

regulation will serve as the mechanism

for establishing federally enforceable

case-by-case MACT emission limits for

HAPs. EPA is interpreting Indiana’s

legal authority and commitment

(Enclosure H, page 33 of the Indiana

program submittal) to mean that, upon

promulgation of the section 112(g)

regulation, the State will expeditiously

adopt regulations consistent with the

provisions of 112(g).

Although section 112(l) generally

provides authority for approval of State

air toxics programs, Title V and section

112(g) provide authority for this limited

approval because of the direct linkage

between implementation of section

112(g) and Title V. The scope of this

approval is narrowly limited to section

112(g) and does not confer or imply

approval for purposes of section 110 or

any other provision under the Act.

c. Program for Delegation of Section 112

Standards as Promulgated

The requirements for a Title V

program approval, specified in 40 CFR

70.4(b), also encompass section 112(l)(5)

requirements for approval of a State

program for delegation of section 112(d),

(f), or (h) standards as promulgated by

EPA as they apply to part 70 sources.

Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State’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

proposing to grant approval, under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, of

Indiana’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112(d), (f), or (h)

standards that are unchanged from the

Federal standards as promulgated. This

program approval applies to both

existing and future standards, but is

limited to sources covered by the part

70 program.

Indiana has informed EPA that it

intends to accept delegation of section

112(d), (f), or (h) standards through rule

adoption. The details of this delegation

mechanism will be set forth in a

Memorandum of Agreement between

Indiana and EPA expected to be

completed prior to approval of Indiana’s

section 112(l) program for delegations.

d. Limiting HAP Emissions Through a

FESOP Program

At the time of the publication of this

Federal Register notice, USEPA has not

approved a FESOP regulation which

would establish federally enforceable

limits on sources’ potential to emit. If

USEPA approves the Indiana FESOP

regulation, Indiana will have the ability

to place federally enforceable limits on

HAPs in addition to criteria pollutants.

The federal enforceability of HAP limits

will be addressed in any future SIP

approving the FESOP program.

e. Title IV

Indiana’s program contains adequate

authority to issue permits which reflect

the requirements of Title IV and its

implementing regulations. 326 IAC 21–

1–1 incorporates by reference 40 CFR

parts 72, 75, 76, 77, and 78. Indiana’s

program submittal contains a

commitment to revise its regulations as

necessary to accommodate federal

revisions and additions to Title IV and

the Acid Rain regulations once they are

promulgated.

B. Options for Approval/Disapproval

and Implications

The EPA is proposing to grant interim

approval to the operating permits

program submitted by Indiana on

August 10, 1994. If this interim approval

is promulgated, the State must make the

following changes to receive full

approval: (1) The State must amend its

insignificant activities levels for SO2

and HAPs to levels which assure that

large sources are included in Title V

review and (2) the State must revise its

emissions threshold level for MPM

group processing eligibility to be

consistent with the 40 CFR

70.7(e)(3)(i)(B) threshold level or the

State may demonstrate that an

alternative to the 40 CFR 70.7(e)(3)(i)(B)

level is acceptable. Indiana’s program is

not fully approvable because of the

deficiencies mentioned above. The

program, however, substantially meets

the requirements of part 70 because

Indiana’s regulations and legislation

comply with all other part 70

requirements. If EPA’s concerns on the

issues mentioned above are addressed

before final action on this notice, then

EPA can fully approve Indiana’s

program. Alternatively, if the State does

not address EPA’s concerns on these

issues before final action on this notice,

then EPA’s final action will remain an

interim approval of the Indiana

program.
27068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to 2 years. During the interim approval

period, the State is protected from

sanctions for failure to have a program,

and EPA is not obligated to promulgate

a Federal permits program in the State.

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 interim approval, as does the 3-

year time period for processing the

initial permit applications. Because the

interim approval automatically expires

2 years after promulgation of a final

interim approval, the State may submit

its interim corrections at any time.

However, the State may not submit its

corrections any later than 18 months

after promulgation of final interim

approval. The EPA will then have 6

months to promulgate a final action.

C. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

Where EPA grants interim approval, it

would extend for 2 years following the

effective date of final interim approval,

and could not be renewed. During the

interim approval period, the State

would not be subject to sanctions and

EPA would not be obligated to

promulgate, administer, and enforce a

Federal permits program for the State.

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 interim

approval as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications.

State failure to timely correct the

deficiencies which are the basis for an

interim approval or EPA disapproval of

a submitted corrective program will

start an 18-month clock for the

mandatory imposition of section 179(b)

sanctions. Each of these occasions starts

a separate sanctions clock and time is

not accumulated from one clock to

another. Section 179(b) of the Act

mandates the impositions of the

following sanctions: (1) 2 to 1 emission

offsets for new construction in

nonattainment areas and (2) restriction

on federal funding of highway projects.

The offset sanction would be imposed

18 months after a sanctions clock is

started and the highway sanction would

be imposed 6 months after the offset

sanction.

Following final interim approval, if

the State failed to submit a complete

corrective program for full approval by

6 months before expiration of the

interim approval, EPA would start the

sanctions clock. If the State then failed

to submit a corrective program that EPA

found complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA would be

required to apply the first section 179(b)

sanction, which would remain in effect

until EPA determined that the State had

submitted a complete corrective

program. Moreover, if the Administrator

found a lack of good faith on the part

of the State, both sanctions under

section 179(b) would apply after the

expiration of the 18-month period until

the Administrator determined that the

State had come into compliance. In any

case, if, 6 months after the application

of the first sanction, the State still had

not submitted a corrective program that

EPA found complete, the second

sanction would be required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the State’s

complete corrective program, EPA

would be required to apply the first

section 179(b) sanction on the date 18

months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless, prior to that date,

the State had submitted a revised

program and EPA had determined that

it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if

the Administrator found a lack of good

faith on the part of the State, both

sanctions under section 179(b) would

apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator

determined that the State had come into

compliance, In all cases, if, 6 months

after EPA applied the first sanction, the

State had not submitted a revised

program that EPA had determined

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

disapproval, the second sanction would

be required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the end of an interim approval

period if a State has not timely

submitted a complete corrective

program or EPA had disapproved a

submitted corrective program.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to a State program by the

expiration of an interim approval and

that expiration occurs after November

15, 1995, EPA must promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for that State upon

interim approval expiration.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket 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 proposed rulemaking. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties a

means to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process, and

(2) To serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by June 21,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. 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 regulation on small entities. 5

U.S.C. sections 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the

regulation 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.

Operating permits program approvals

under section 502 of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal operating permits

program 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 State

action.

The Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning operating permits

programs on such grounds. Union

Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246,

256–66 (S. Ct 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most cost-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 98 / Monday, May 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27069

effective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed approval action promulgated

today 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 Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, and

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. sections 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12474 Filed 5–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 970

RIN 1991–AA63

Acquisition Regulation; Technology

Transfer Activities of Department of

Energy (DOE) Management and

Operating Contractors

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) today proposes an amendment to

codify DOE’s implementation of its

technology transfer mission for DOE

laboratories (including weapon

production facilities) operated by

management and operating contractors.

The National Competitiveness

Technology Transfer Act of 1989

required that technology transfer be

established as a mission of each

Government-owned laboratory operated

under contract by a non-Federal entity.

The National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1994 expanded the

Stevenson-Wydler Technology

Innovation Act of 1980 definition of

laboratory to include weapon

production facilities of the Department

of Energy that are operated for national

security purposes and are engaged in

the production, maintenance, testing, or

dismantlement of a nuclear weapon or

its components. DOE is proposing to

amend the Department of Energy

Acquisition Regulation to specify that

each new award for or renewal of an

existing management and operating

contract for the operation of a DOE

laboratory or weapon production facility

shall have technology transfer as a

mission.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by July 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Howard K. Mitchell,

Policy Analyst, Office of Policy (HR–

51), Office of the Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Procurement and

Assistance Management, Washington,

D.C., 20585, (202) 586–8190.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard K. Mitchell, (202) 586–8190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Section by Section Analysis of the

Proposed Rule

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Regulatory Review Under Executive Order

12866

B. Review Under Executive Order 12612

C. Review Under Executive Order 12778

D. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

E. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

F. Review Under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA)

IV. Public Comments

V. Public Hearing

I. Background

Under Section 644 of the Department

of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95–

91 (42 U.S.C. 7254), the Secretary of

Energy is authorized to prescribe such

procedural rules and regulations as may

be deemed necessary or appropriate to

accomplish the functions vested in the

position. Accordingly, the Department

of Energy Acquisition Regulation was

promulgated with an effective date of

April 1, 1984, (49 FR 11922, March 28,

1984), 48 CFR chapter 9. With this rule,

DOE is proposing an addition amending

part 970 of the Department of Energy

Acquisition Regulation to codify DOE’s

implementation of its technology

transfer mission for DOE laboratories

and weapon production facilities

operated by management and operating

contractors.

Technology advancement is a key

component in the growth of the United

States industrial economy, and a strong

industrial base is an essential element of

national security. Further, there is a

continuing need to enhance United

States competitiveness in both domestic

and international markets. DOE

laboratories and weapon production

facilities, operated by DOE management

and operating contractors, have

developed outstanding capabilities in a

wide variety of advanced technologies

and are staffed with scientists,

engineers, technicians and other

personnel associated with those

technologies. The deployment of these

resources to work with the private

sector through cooperative efforts,

consistent with the laboratory’s or

facility’s program mission assignments,

can make a substantial contribution to

the competitive posture of United States

industry.

In recognition of such capabilities,

Congress enacted the National

Competitiveness Technology Transfer

Act of 1989. This Act extended to

Government-owned contractor-operated

laboratories the same authority to enter

into cooperative research and

development agreements (CRADAs)

which the Federal Technology Transfer

Act of 1986 had given to Governmentowned Government-operated

laboratories and also provided for the

protection from dissemination of certain

types of information generated under

CRADAs. Section 3133(d) of the Act

required, by April 30, 1990, each agency

which had contracted with a nonFederal entity to operate a Governmentowned laboratory to propose for

inclusion in that laboratory’s operating

contract, appropriate contract

provisions to implement the

requirements of the Act. The National

Competitiveness Technology Transfer

Act of 1989, as amended by Sections

3134 and 3160 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994,

established technology transfer as a

mission for Government-owned,

contractor-operated laboratories as well

as for weapon production facilities. It

also authorized such laboratories and

weapon facilities to negotiate and award

CRADAs with other Federal agencies,

State and local governments, industrial

organizations, public and private

foundations, nonprofit organizations

and other persons for the purposes of

transferring technology and conducting

research and development.

Additionally, Sec. 3133(a)(7) of the Act

allows certain types of information

generated under CRADAs to be

protected from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act for a period

of up to five years.

The promulgation and use of a final

version of a technology transfer contract

clause for DOE laboratories and weapon

production facilities operated by