14320 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Puget Sound Clean Air was formerly known as

the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

(PSAPCA). Federal Register rules that were

published prior to January 2000 regarding this

agency have used the PSAPCA name.

[FR Doc. 01–5854 Filed 3–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6882–2]

Approval of the Clean Air Act, Section

112(l), Authority for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Perchloroethylene Air

Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning

Facilities; State of Washington; Puget

Sound Clean Air Agency

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA), the State of

Washington Department of Ecology

(Ecology) submitted a request on behalf

of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

(Puget Sound Clean Air) for approval to

implement and enforce Puget Sound

Clean Air’s Regulation III, section 3.03,

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners in place

of federal National Perchloroethylene

Air Emission Standards for Dry

Cleaning Facilities (‘‘dry cleaning

NESHAP’’), as it applies to area sources.

EPA has reviewed this request and

found that it satisfies the requirements

necessary to qualify for approval. Thus,

EPA is hereby granting Puget Sound

Clean Air the authority to implement

and enforce its Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaners regulation in place of the

federal dry cleaning NESHAP, for area

sources under Puget Sound Clean Air’s

jurisdiction. This approval makes Puget

Sound Clean Air’s rules federally

enforceable and reduces the burden on

area sources within Puget Sound Clean

Air’s jurisdiction such that they will

only have one rule with which they

must comply. Major sources remain

subject to the federal dry cleaning

NESHAP, as adopted into Puget Sound

Clean Air Regulation III, Section 2.02.

DATES: This action will be effective on

May 11, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives relevant adverse

comments by April 11, 2001. If EPA

receives such comments, then it will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this direct final rule will not take

effect. The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 11,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed concurrently to the addresses

below:

Doug Hardesty, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region X, Office of

Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101.

Dennis McLerran, Director, Puget Sound

Clean Air Agency, 110 Union Street,

Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98101.

Copies of the requests for approval are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region X office during normal business

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Hardesty, US EPA, Region X

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

WA, 98101, (206) 553–6641.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

I. Background and Purpose

II. EPA Evaluation and Action

A. Puget Sound Clean Air’s Dry Cleaning

Rule

1. Classification of Sources

2. Applicability of Major Sources

3. New Facilities Constructed After 12/09/

91

4. Technical Reference for Definitions

5. Washer Shall Not Share Refrigerated

Condensers with Any Other Equipment

6. Put Perc Into Solvent Tank or Container

with ‘‘No Perceptible Leaks’’

7. Dry Cleaning System Inspection

8. Conditions for Refrigerated Condensers

and Carbon Absorbers That are

Performing Out of Parameter Limits

9. Use of Colorimetric Tubes

10. Maintain Records for at Least 5 Years

11. On-site Design Specs and Operating

Manuals for Each System

12. Authority to Determine Equivalent

Emission Control Technology for Dry

Cleaning Facilities

B. EPA’s Action

C. Puget Sound Clean Air’s Authorities to

Implement and Enforce Section 112

Standards

1. Penalty Authorities

2. Variances

D. Effect of EPA’s Action on Tribal Lands

III. Opportunity for Public Comment

IV. Summary of EPA’s Action

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background and Purpose

Under CAA section 112(l), EPA may

approve state or local rules or programs

to be implemented and enforced in

place of certain otherwise applicable

CAA section 112 federal rules, emission

standards, or requirements. The federal

regulations governing EPA’s approval of

state and local rules or programs under

section 112(l) are located at 40 CFR part

63, subpart E (see 59 FR 62262,

November 26, 1993). Under these

regulations, a local air pollution control

agency has the option to request EPA’s

approval to substitute a local rule for the

applicable federal rule (i.e., the federal

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)).

Upon approval, the local agency is given

the authority to implement and enforce

its rule in place of the NESHAP. To

receive EPA approval using this ‘‘rule

substitution’’ option, the requirements

of 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93 must be met.

On December 1, 1998, (see 63 FR

66054), EPA promulgated direct final

approval of the State of Washington

Department of Ecology’s (Ecology)

request, on behalf of the Puget Sound

Clean Air Agency 1 (Puget Sound Clean

Air), for delegation of authority to

implement and enforce certain 40 CFR

parts 61 and 63 NESHAP rules, as they

apply to both part 70 and non-part 70

sources (i.e., ‘‘area sources’’). Ecology

had submitted a request on behalf of

Puget Sound Clean Air for approval of

a rule adjustment for 40 CFR part 63,

subpart M (dry cleaning NESHAP). The

original request was dated January 16,

1997, with a correction letter dated

September 4, 1997. EPA did not address

this request in the December 1, 1998,

rulemaking because EPA anticipated

that approval of the requested rule

adjustments would require a more

detailed review under 40 CFR 63.92,

and decided to address Puget Sound

Clean Air’s request for rule adjustments

in a separate notice. After completing its

review of Puget Sound Clean Air’s

request, EPA has determined that Puget

Sound Clean Air’s request does not

qualify as a rule adjustment under 40

CFR 63.92. Instead, the request shall be

treated as a request for a rule

substitution as defined in 40 CFR 63.93.

Therefore, EPA is acting on this request

as a rule substitution according to 40

CFR 63.93.

II. EPA Evaluation and Action

A. Puget Sound Clean Air’s Dry

Cleaning Rule

Puget Sound Clean Air’s dry cleaning

rule differs in several ways from the

federal dry cleaning NESHAP. Many of

these differences make Puget Sound

Clean Air’s regulations more stringent

than the federal NESHAP. However,

some of the provisions of Puget Sound

Clean Air’s dry cleaning regulations

require further clarification to explain

how they are at least equivalent to the

federal dry cleaning NESHAP. In a letter

dated June 9, 2000, Puget Sound Clean

Air committed to interpreting and

implementing its dry cleaning rule

consistent with the explanations

provided in this section so that its rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 14321

is more stringent or as stringent as the

federal dry cleaning NESHAP.

1. Classification of Sources

In 40 CFR 63.320(g), the federal

NESHAP classifies dry cleaning sources

based on either annual

perchloroethylene (‘‘perc’’) emissions or

annual perc consumption. Major

sources are those sources with either 10

tpy perc emissions or perc consumption

greater than 8000 Liters (2100 gallons)

for dry to dry machines or greater than

6800 liters (1800 gallons) for transfer or

transfer & dry to dry machines. Puget

Sound Clean Air’s regulation use only

perc emissions to identify major

sources. Puget Sound Clean Air

Regulation I, section 1.07(aa) defines

Major Source of Hazardous Air

Pollutant (HAP) as one that emits 10 tpy

of a single HAP (such as perc). EPA

believes that this definition adequately

captures all major source dry cleaning

facilities within Puget Sound Clean

Air’s jurisdiction. For both the federal

and the Puget Sound Clean Air

regulations, area sources are those

sources which do not meet the criteria

listed above. Puget Sound Clean Air’s

regulation applies to all dry cleaning

systems using perc (Puget Sound Clean

Air Regulation III, section 3.03(a)).

Therefore, EPA believes that this

requirement captures all area source dry

cleaning facilities within Puget Sound

Clean Air’s jurisdiction.

2. Applicability of Major Sources

Puget Sound Clean Air’s request for

approval included only those provisions

of the dry cleaning NESHAP that apply

to area sources. Thus, percholorethylene

dry cleaning facilities that qualify as

major sources, will remain subject to the

federal NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,

subpart M), as adopted by reference into

Puget Sound Clean Air Regulation III,

section 2.02. Additionally, major

sources are required to obtain a Title V

permit (Puget Sound Clean Air

Regulation III, section 3.03[h]).

3. New Facilities Constructed After 12/

09/91

In 40 CFR 63.320(b), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP states that new

facilities constructed after 12/09/91

must comply upon startup. Puget Sound

Clean Air’s regulations do not

specifically address this because Puget

Sound Clean Air has been regulating its

dry cleaning facilities since before 12/

09/91, and all sources constructed after

this date would be required to install

Best Available Control Technology

(BACT) upon startup. BACT is more

stringent than MACT (in this case,

BACT would be a nonventing, closed

loop machine, while MACT would not

be closed loop and would allow

venting), so Puget Sound Clean Air’s

regulation would be more stringent for

new sources. Also, for existing sources

that are modified or upgraded, they

would be required by Puget Sound

Clean Air’s regulations to vent to a

refrigerated condenser which EPA

considers to be equivalent to the MACT.

4. Technical Reference for Definitions

Puget Sound Clean Air’s dry cleaning

regulation does not include all of the

same definitions as the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP. Puget Sound Clean

Air determined that some of the terms

are defined elsewhere in its regulations,

and that some definitions are not

necessary for its dry cleaning regulation.

In its equivalency determination, Puget

Sound Clean Air stated that if a conflict

arises in defining terms, it will defer to

the definitions in the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP.

5. Washer Shall Not Share Refrigerated

Condensers With Any Other Equipment

The federal dry cleaning NESHAP

states in 40 CFR 63.322(f)(3), that

washers shall not share refrigerated

condensers (RC) with any other

equipment. Puget Sound Clean Air’s

regulations do not address this section

because no current facilities share the

RC and no new transfer machines are

permitted. This is acceptable to EPA

based on the understanding that no new

transfer machines will be permitted and

that there are no new (or existing)

facilities that couple their RC with any

other equipment.

6. Put Perc Into Solvent Tank or

Container With ‘‘No Perceptible Leaks’’

In 40 CFR 63.322(j), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP requires that perc

must be put into a solvent tank or

solvent container with ‘‘no perceptible

leaks.’’ Puget Sound Clean Air

Regulation I, section 3.03(c)(4) requires

that perc be put into a ‘‘closed

container.’’ Puget Sound Clean Air has

clarified that a ‘‘closed container’’ will

be interpreted as a container that has

‘‘no perceptible leaks.’’

7. Dry Cleaning System Inspection

In 40 CFR 63.322(k), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP requires weekly

perceptible leak inspections and

identifies the specific components

which must be inspected. Puget Sound

Clean Air’s rule at Regulation III, section

3.03(c)(1) requires a visual inspection of

the ‘‘dry cleaning system.’’ EPA has

confirmed that Puget Sound Clean Air’s

interpretation of the requirement in

section 3.03(c)(1) to conduct a visual

inspection is that this inspection must

include a weekly inspection of all the

parts listed in 40 CFR 63.322(k) and

must be conducted when the dry

cleaning system is operating.

8. Conditions for Refrigerated

Condensers and Carbon Absorbers That

Are Performing Out of Parameter Limits

In 40 CFR 63.322(n), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP states that if a RC or

carbon absorber (CA) does not meet the

monitoring parameter limits, then

adjustments or repairs shall be made to

the dry cleaning system or control

device to meet those values. It also

states that if repair parts must be

ordered, then a written or verbal order

for these parts shall be initiated within

2 working days of detecting such

parameter value. Additionally, these

repair parts shall be installed within 5

working days after receipt. Puget Sound

Clean Air Regulation III, section

3.03(f)(1), does not specify the time

period in which to repair the dry

cleaning system. Instead, it refers to

Puget Sound Clean Air Regulation I,

section 5.05(e), which states that a dry

cleaner’s operation and maintenance

plan shall include ‘‘prompt’’ repair of

any defective equipment or control

equipment. EPA and Puget Sound Clean

Air interpret this regulation as requiring

repair within the time frames required

by the federal dry cleaning NESHAP.

9. Use of Colorimetric Tubes

Puget Sound Clean Air’s Regulation

III, section 3.03(e)(2) does not provide a

specific requirement regarding the use

of a colorimetric tube. In 40 CFR

63.323(b)(2) and (3), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP describes where to

place a sampling port and states that the

colorimetric tube should be used

according to the manufacturer’s

instructions. Puget Sound Clean Air has

agreed to implement Puget Sound Clean

Air Regulation III, section 3.03(e)(2)

consistent with the requirements of

section 63.323(b) of the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP regarding the use of

the colorimetric tubes, including the

correct placement of the sampling port.

10. Maintain Records for at Least 5

Years

In 40 CFR 63.324(d), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP requires a facility to

maintain records on site for a minimum

of 5 years. Puget Sound Clean Air’s

Regulation I, section 5.05(e) does not

specify a time frame that a facility must

maintain records on site. Both EPA and

Puget Sound Clean Air interpret section

5.05(e) to require that records must be

maintained indefinitely.

14322 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

11. On-site Design Specs and Operating

Manuals for Each System

In 40 CFR 63.324(e), the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP requires a facility to

maintain on-site design specs and

operating manuals for each system and

control device. Puget Sound Clean Air’s

Regulation III, section 3.03(c)(5) states

that facilities shall operate and maintain

the dry cleaning system according to

manufacturer’s specifications and

recommendations. EPA agrees with

Puget Sound Clean Air’s interpretation

of section 3.03(c)(5) that, in order to

follow a manufacturer’s specifications, a

dry cleaner must maintain an operating

manual.

12. Authority To Determine Equivalent

Emission Control Technology for Dry

Cleaning Facilities

Under the federal dry cleaning

NESHAP, any person may petition the

EPA Administrator for a determination

that the use of certain equipment or

procedures is equivalent to the

standards contained in the dry cleaning

NESHAP (see 40 CFR 63.325). In its

request, Puget Sound Clean Air

requested approval for the provisions in

Puget Sound Clean Air Regulation I,

section 3.23, that would allow for the

use of alternative emission control

technology without previous approval

from EPA. However, CAA section

112(h)(3) limits EPA’s authority to

approve alternative standards solely to

the EPA Administrator. A source

seeking permission to use an alternative

means of emission limitation under

CAA section 112(h)(3) must receive

approval, after notice and opportunity

for comment, from EPA before using

such alternative means of emission

limitation for the purpose of complying

with CAA section 112. Therefore, EPA

cannot approve Puget Sound Clean Air’s

request for authority to approve

alternative emission control

technologies.

B. EPA’s Action

After reviewing the request for

approval of Puget Sound Clean Air’s dry

cleaning rules, EPA has determined that

this request meets all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

approval under CAA section 112(l) and

40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93. EPA has

determined that Puget Sound Clean

Air’s dry cleaning rule is equivalent or

more stringent than the federal dry

cleaning NESHAP. Therefore, EPA

hereby approves Puget Sound Clean

Air’s dry cleaning rule to be used in

place of the federal dry cleaning

NESHAP, as it applies to area sources in

Puget Sound Clean Air’s jurisdiction. As

of the effective date of this action, Puget

Sound Clean Air’s dry cleaning rule is

enforceable by the EPA and citizens

under the CAA. Although Puget Sound

Clean Air has primary implementation

and enforcement responsibility, EPA

retains the right, pursuant to CAA

section 112(l)(7), to enforce any

applicable emission standard or

requirement under CAA section 112.

C. Puget Sound Clean Air’s Authorities

To Implement and Enforce Section 112

Standards

1. Penalty Authorities

In response to Puget Sound Clean

Air’s original request for NESHAP

program approval and delegation of

authority, EPA had only granted interim

approval to Puget Sound Clean Air (see

61 FR 43675) because Ecology’s statute

addressing criminal authorities, RCW

70.94.430, which Puget Sound Clean Air

implements, did not meet the stringency

requirements of 40 CFR 70.11 and 40

CFR 63.91. Ecology addressed these

issues in a letter dated October 7, 1996.

This letter included a legal

memorandum from the Washington

State Attorney General’s Office dated

May 23, 1996, explaining how the

statutory authority in RCW 70.94.430(1)

may be interpreted to provide the

required authority for criminal

penalties. Ecology also amended the

State regulation at Washington

Administrative Code (WAC) 173–400–

105(7) and (8) to include prohibitions

against knowingly making false

statements and knowingly rendering

inaccurate any monitoring device. In a

letter dated February 28, 1997, Ecology

provided supporting documentation

from Puget Sound Clean Air. In this

documentation, Puget Sound Clean Air

committed to enforcing WAC 173–400–

105(7) and (8) until such time as it

might adopt its own equivalent

regulations. Based on this information,

EPA determined that Puget Sound Clean

Air has adequate criminal authorities to

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.11

and 40 CFR 63.91 (see 63 FR 66054 for

Puget Sound Clean Air’s final NESHAPs

approval and delegation of authority).

As stated in section II.B. above, EPA

retains the right, pursuant to CAA

section 112(l)(7), to enforce any

applicable emission standard or

requirement under CAA section 112,

including the authority to seek civil and

criminal penalties up to the maximum

amounts specified in CAA section 113.

2. Variances

Puget Sound Clean Air Regulation I,

section 3.23, ‘‘Alternate Means of

Compliance,’’ provides for the granting

of variances under certain

circumstances. EPA regards these

provisions as wholly external to Puget

Sound Clean Air’s request for approval

to implement and enforce a CAA section

112 program or rule and, consequently,

does not approve this provision as part

of this action. EPA does not recognize

the ability of a State or local agency who

has received delegation of a CAA

section 112 program or rule to grant

relief from the duty to comply with such

Federally-enforceable program or rule,

except where such relief is granted in

accordance with procedures allowed

under CAA section 112. As stated

above, EPA retains the right, pursuant to

CAA section 112(l)(7), to enforce any

applicable emission standard or

requirement under CAA section 112. As

mentioned in section II.A.12 above, a

source seeking permission to use an

alternative means of emission limitation

under CAA section 112 must also

receive approval, after notice and

opportunity for comment, from EPA

before using such alternative means of

emission limitation for the purpose of

complying with CAA section 112.

D. Effect of EPA’s Action on Tribal

Lands

Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

Settlement Act of 1989, Congress

provided state and local agencies, such

as Puget Sound Clean Air, authority

over activities on non-trust lands within

the 1873 Survey Area. As of the

effective date of this action, Puget

Sound Clean Air will be implementing

and enforcing its dry cleaning rule, as it

applies to area sources on the non-trust

lands within the 1873 Survey Area, in

place of the federal dry cleaning

NESHAP. EPA consulted with the

Puyallup Tribe by letter dated January

11, 2000 regarding this action, and

received no adverse comments from the

Tribe.

III. Opportunity for Public Comment

EPA views the approval of Puget

Sound Clean Air’s request to use its

Perchloroethylene Dr Cleaners

regulation as a substitute for the federal

dry cleaning NESHAP as a

noncontroversial action and anticipates

no adverse comments. Therefore, EPA is

publishing this direct final rule without

prior proposal. However, in the

Proposed Rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal for this action should

relevant adverse comments be filed.

This action will be effective on May 11,

2001 without further notice, unless EPA

receives relevant adverse comments by

April 11, 2001.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 14323

If EPA receives such comments, then

it will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the

public that this direct final rule will not

take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this rule.

Any parties interested in commenting

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this rule will be effective

on May 11, 2001 and no further action

will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Summary of EPA’s Action

Pursuant to section 112(l) of the CAA

and 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93, EPA is

approving Ecology’s request for Puget

Sound Clean Air to implement and

enforce Puget Sound Clean Air’s

Regulation III, section 3.03,

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners (section

3.03) in place of 40 CFR part 63, subpart

M, National Perchloroethylene Air

Emission Standards for Dry Cleaning

Facilities, as it applies to area sources.

This approval makes Puget Sound Clean

Air’s rules federally enforceable and

reduces the burden on area sources

within Puget Sound Clean Air’s

jurisdiction such that they only have

one rule with which they must comply.

Major sources remain subject to 40 CFR

part 63, subpart M, as adopted into

Puget Sound Clean Air Regulation III,

section 2.02.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from review under Executive

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory

Planning and Review.’’

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045, entitled, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ because it is

not an ‘‘economically significant’’ action

under Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule does not have federalism

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a State program and

rules implementing a Federal standard,

and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the CAA.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not

apply to this rule.

Although section 6 of the Executive

Order does not apply to this rule, EPA

did consult with representatives of State

and local governments in developing

this rule, and this rule is in response to

the State’s and local’s delegation

request.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any rule on

small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and small government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because

approvals under 40 CFR 63.93 do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state or local agency is already

imposing. Therefore, because this action

does not impose any new requirements,

I certify that it does not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

state, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

delegation action promulgated does not

include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

14324 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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.

F. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

G. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 11, 2001. 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 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 2, 2000.

Charles E. Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region X.

Title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

adding paragraph (d)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) Revisions to Puget Sound Clean

Air Regulation III, section 3.03,

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners adopted

on November 9, 1995, IBR approved for

section 63.99 (a)(47)(ii) of subpart E of

this part.

Subpart E—Approval of State

Programs and Delegation of Federal

Authorities

3. Section 63.99 is amended by

revising the table in paragraph (a)(47)(i)

and by adding paragraph (a)(47)(ii) to

read as follows:

§ 63.99 Delegated Federal authorities.

(a) * * *

(47) * * *

(i) * * *

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—WASHINGTON

Subpart Description Ecology 1 BCAA2 NWAPA3 OAPCA4 PSCAA5 SCAPCA6 SWAPCA7 YRCAA8

A ............ General Provisions 9 ................. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

D ............ Early Reductions ....................... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

F ............. HON–SOCMI ............................ ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

G ............ HON-Process Vents .................. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

H ............ HON-Equipment Leaks ............. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

I .............. HON-Negotiated Leaks ............. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

L ............. Coke Oven Batteries ................. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

M ............ Perc Dry Cleaning ..................... ................ ................ X ................ X5 ................. X

N ............ Chromium Electroplating ........... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

O ............ Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers ......... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

Q ............ Industrial Process Cooling Towers................. ................ X ................ X ................. X

R ............ Gasoline Distribution ................. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

S ............ Pulp and Paper 10 ..................... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

T ............. Halogenated Solvent Cleaning ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

U ............ Polymers and Resins I .............. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

W ........... Polymers and Resins II—Epoxy ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

X ............ Secondary Lead Smelting ......... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

Y ............ Marine Tank Vessel Loading .... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

AA .......... Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing

Plants.

................ ................ X ................ X

BB .......... Phosphate Fertilizers Production Plants................. ................ X ................ X

CC .......... Petroleum Refineries ................ ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

DD .......... Off-Site Waste and Recovery ... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

EE .......... Magnetic Tape Manufacturing .. ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

GG ......... Aerospace Manufacturing & Rework................. ................ X ................ X ................. X

HH .......... Oil and Natural Gas Production

Facilities.

................ ................ X ................ X

II ............. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair ... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

JJ ........... Wood Furniture Manufacturing

Operations.

................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

KK .......... Printing and Publishing Industry................. ................ X ................ X ................. X

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 14325

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—WASHINGTON—Continued

Subpart Description Ecology 1 BCAA2 NWAPA3 OAPCA4 PSCAA5 SCAPCA6 SWAPCA7 YRCAA8

LL ........... Primary Aluminum 11.

OO ......... Tanks—Level 1 ......................... ................ ................ X ................ X

PP .......... Containers ................................. ................ ................ X ................ X

QQ ......... Surface Impoundments ............. ................ ................ X ................ X

RR .......... Individual Drain Systems .......... ................ ................ X ................ X

SS .......... Closed Vent Systems, Control

Devices, Recovery Devices

and Routing to a Fuel Gas

System or Process.

................ ................ X ................ X

TT .......... Equipment Leaks—Control

Level 1.

................ ................ X ................ X

UU .......... Equipment Leaks—Control

Level 2.

................ ................ X ................ X

VV .......... Oil-Water Separators and Organic-Water Separators................. ................ X ................ X ................. X

WW ........ Storage Vessels (Tanks)—Control Level 2................. ................ X ................ X

YY .......... Source Categories: Generic

MACT.

................ ................ X ................ X

CCC ....... Steel Pickling—HCl Process

Facilities and Hydrochloric

Acid Regeneration Plants.

................ ................ X ................ X

DDD ....... Mineral Wool Production ........... ................ ................ X ................ X

EEE ........ Hazardous Waste Combustors ................ ................ X ................ X

GGG ...... Pharmaceuticals Production ..... ................ ................ X ................ X

HHH ....... Natural Gas Transmission and

Storage Facilities.

................ ................ X ................ X

III ............ Flexible Polyurethane Foam

Production.

................ ................ X ................ X

JJJ ......... Polymers and Resins IV ........... ................ ................ X ................ X ................. X

LLL ......... Portland Cement Manufacturing ................ ................ X ................ X

MMM ...... Pesticide Active Ingredient Production................. ................ X ................ X

NNN ....... Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing ................ ................ X ................ X

PPP ........ Polyether Polyols Production .... ................ ................ X ................ X

TTT ........ Primary Lead Smelting ............. ................ ................ X ................ X

XXX ........ Ferroalloys Production:

Ferromanganese &

Silicomanganese.

................ ................ X ................ X

1Washington Department of Ecology.

2Benton Clean Air Authority.

3 Northwest Air Pollution Authority (7/1/99).

4Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority.

5Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (7/1/99).

Note: For area source drycleaners within Puget Sound Clean Air’s jurisdiction, see 40 CFR 63.99(a)(47)(ii). 6Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority.

7Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority (8/1/98).

8Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority.

9Authorities which may not be delegated include: 40 CFR 63.6(g); 63.6(h)(9); 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) for approval of major alternatives to test

methods; 63.8(f) for approval of major alternatives to monitoring; 63.10(f); and all authorities identified in the subparts (i.e., under ‘‘Delegation of

Authority’’) that cannot be delegated. For definitions of minor, intermediate, and major alternatives to test methods and monitoring, see memorandum from John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated July, 10, 1998, entitled, ‘‘Delegation of 40 CFR part 63 General

Provisions Authorities to State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies.’’ 10Subpart S of this part is delegated to these agencies as applies to all applicable facilities and processes as defined in 40 CFR 63.440, except kraft and sulfite pulping mills. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) retains the authority to regulate kraft and sulfite pulping

mills in the State of Washington, pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173–405–012 and 173–410–012. 11Subpart LL of this part cannot be delegated to any local agencies in Washington because Ecology retains the authority to regulate primary

aluminum plants, pursuant to WAC 173–415–012.

Note to paragraph (a)(47): Dates in parenthesis indicate the effective date of the federal rules that have been adopted by and delegated to

the state or local air pollution control agency. Therefore, any amendments made to these delegated rules after this effective date are not delegated to the agency.

(ii) Affected area sources within Puget

Sound Clean Air’s jurisdiction must

comply with Puget Sound Clean Air’s

Regulation III, sections 3.03,

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners,

(incorporated by reference as specified

in 40 CFR 63.14) as follows:

(A) The material incorporated in

Puget Sound Clean Air’s Regulation III,

section 3.03, Perchloroethylene Dry

Cleaners, pertains to the

perchloroethylene dry cleaning source

category in the Puget Sound Clean Air

jurisdiction, and has been approved

under the procedures in 40 CFR 63.93

to be implemented and enforced in

place of the federal NESHAPs for

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart M),

for area sources, as defined in 40 CFR

63.320(h).

(1) Authorities not delegated.

(i) Puget Sound Clean Air is not

delegated the authority to implement

and enforce Puget Sound Clean Air

Regulation III, sections 3.03 in lieu of

those provisions of Subpart M which

14326 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

applies to major sources, as defined in

40 CFR 63.320(g). Dry cleaning facilities

which are major sources remain subject

to subpart M.

(ii) Puget Sound Clean Air is not

delegated the authority of 40 CFR

63.325 to determine equivalency of

emissions control technologies. Any

source seeking permission to use an

alternative means of emission limitation

under Puget Sound Clean Air

Regulation I, section 3.23 must also

receive approval from the Administrator

before using such alternative means of

emission limitation for the purpose of

complying with section 112.

(B) [reserved].

[FR Doc. 01–1343 Filed 3–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301104; FRL–6769–8]

RIN 2070–AB78

Butene, Homopolymer; Tolerance

Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of butene,

homopolymer; when used as an inert

ingredient in or on growing crops, when

applied to raw agricultural commodities

after harvest, or to animals. Miller

Chemical and Fertilizer Corporation,

submitted a petition to EPA under the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act of 1996 requesting an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the

need to establish a maximum

permissible level for residues of butene,

homopolymer.

DATES: This regulation is effective

March 12, 2001. Objections and requests

for hearings, identified by docket

control number OPP–301104 must be

received by EPA on or before May 11,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VIII. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301104 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Indira Gairola, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 308–6379 and e-mail

address: gairola. indira@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document and Other Related

Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

‘‘Laws and Regulations,’’ ‘‘Regulations

and Proposed Rules,’’ and then look up

the entry for this document under the

‘‘Federal Register—Environmental

Documents.’’ You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A frequently

updated electronic version of 40 CFR

part 180 is available at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/

cfrhtml_00/Title_40/40cfr180_00.html, a

beta site currently under development.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPP–301104. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, andother

information related to this action,

including any information claimed as

Confidential Business Information (CBI).

This official record includes the

documents that are physically located in

the docket, as well as the documents

that are referenced in those documents.

The public version of the official record

does not include any information

claimed as CBI. The public version of

the official record, which includes

printed, paper versions of any electronic

comments submitted during an

applicable comment period is available

for inspection in the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB),

Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson

Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB

telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

In the Federal Register of December

20, 2000 (65 FR 79839) (FRL–6760–6),

EPA issued a notice pursuant to section

408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a,

as amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA) (Public Law 104–

170) announcing the filing of a pesticide

petition (PP 1E6239) by Miller Chemical

and Fertilizer Corporation, P.O. Box

333, Radio Road, Hanover, PA 17331.

This notice included a summary of the

petition prepared by the petitioner.

There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.

The petition requested that 40 CFR

180.1001 (c) and (e) be amended by

establishing an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of butene, homopolymer; (CAS Reg. No.

9003–29–6).

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA

allows EPA to establish an exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance (the

legal limit for a pesticide chemical

residue in or on a food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to

mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue, including all

anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water and in

residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section