9812 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

deficiencies listed above (i.e.,

specification of emission quantification,

compliance assurance, and public

participation procedures). Namely, the

State would need to demonstrate that

any potential one-time or carry-over

ERCs are or will be consistent with the

applicable attainment plan or

demonstration, reasonable further

progress (RFP) plan or milestone

demonstration, and surplus to any

applicable areawide RACT emission

reduction requirements.

Essentially, this means that the State

would need to submit documentation

showing that the SIP requires, or will

require, reductions equivalent to all

potential one-time or carry-over ERCs

beyond those reductions required from

any applicable RACT, RFP, and/or

attainment plan regulations, during the

year(s) in which such ERCs are allowed

to be used. Alternatively, the State

could show that their adopted RACT,

RFP, and/or attainment control

strategies provide for equivalent

reductions below the appropriate RFP or

attainment target levels, and any

applicable areawide RACT

requirements. For example, if a State

wanted to allow the use of 10 tons per

typical summer day from a previous

year, the State would need to show that

its adopted control strategies provide for

reductions that would create a 10 ton

per day excess below the appropriate

RFP or attainment target level and

RACT requirements.

Additionally, appendix B(3)(g)(5) of

the rule generally allows the bank to

retain credits without confiscation from

the State. However, the regulations also

provide the State with the authority to

make adjustments, including

confiscation, to banked credits if needed

for Rate-of-Progress (ROP), Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP), or attainment

requirements, as stated in appendix

B(3)(l). According to appendix B(3)(l),

the State would need to revise the SIP

to take such action. EPA approves these

provisions.

Finally, as mentioned above, although

subsection (4) of the regulation has been

reserved for the emissions averaging

(bubbling) provisions, it was not

submitted as part of the February 10,

1994 submittal. Therefore, until such

time as a separate SIP revision allowing

emissions averaging is approved, no

generic emissions averaging would be

allowed by approval of these rules.

Based on the issues discussed above,

EPA is proposing to approve this

revision to the Massachusetts SIP. EPA

is soliciting public comments on the

issues discussed in this proposal or on

other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

action.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing approval as a nongeneric economic incentive program of

310 CMR 7.00 appendix B, as submitted

to the EPA on February 9, 1994, as part

of the Massachusetts SIP.

Regulatory Process

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. A future document will

inform the general public of these

tables. The Office of Management and

Budget has exempted this action from

review under Executive Order 12866.

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 rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs 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).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the SIP revision

will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of sections 110(a)(2) (A)–

(K) and 110(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 31, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 95–4296 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5160–3]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant

Emissions From Wood Furniture

Manufacturing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the

period for public comment regarding the

Agency’s proposed standards for

hazardous air pollutant emissions from

wood furniture manufacturing

operations.

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be received on or

before March 23, 1995. Written

comments pertaining only to the

proposed test Method 311 must be

received on or before April 24, 1995.

Comments should be submitted in

duplicate, and on computer disk, if

possible.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention, Docket No. A–

93–10, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

Docket. Docket No. A–93–10,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed standards, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9813

Room M–1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone

(202) 260–7548. FAX (202) 260–4400.

The proposed regulatory text, proposed

test Method 311 and other materials

related to this rulemaking are available

for review in the docket. A reasonable

fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information concerning the

proposed standards, contact Dr.

Madeleine Strum at (919) 541–2383,

Coatings and Consumer Products Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711. For further information

concerning the proposed test Method

311, contact Mr. Gary McAlister at (919)

541–1062, Source Categorization Group

B, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis

Division (MD–19), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 6, 1994, EPA published

proposed standards to limit emissions of

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from

existing and new wood furniture

manufacturing operations located at

major sources. The proposed standards

implement section 112(d) of the Clean

Air Act as amended, which require the

Administrator to regulate emissions of

HAP listed in section 112(b) of the Act.

The EPA also proposed Method 311, to

be used to assist in demonstrating

compliance with the proposed emission

limitations.

The comment period was scheduled

to close on February 21, 1995. Industry

has requested a 60-day extension of the

comment period to complete testing of

the proposed test Method 311. In

response to this request, the Agency is

extending the comment period for the

proposed Method 311 to April 24, 1995.

The comment period for the proposed

rule, however, will be extended by only

30 days, and is thus extended to March

23, 1995. All interested parties are

encouraged to submit comments prior to

that date.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–4454 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Parts 63 and 430

[FRL–5156–5]

RIN 2060–AD03 and 2040–AB53

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards: Pulp,

Paper, and Paperboard Category;

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Category: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: On December 17, 1993, EPA

proposed standards to reduce the

discharge of water pollutants and

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from the pulp, paper, and paperboard

industry (58 FR 66078). This action

announces the availability of additional

data that EPA will consider for the

promulgation of hazardous air pollutant

emission standards for this industry.

DATES: Comments are not solicited at

this time.

ADDRESSES: The data being announced

today has been placed in Air Docket A–

92–40. The docket is available for public

inspection and copying between 8 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at

the EPA Air Docket Section, Waterside

Mall, room M1500, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Najarian, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5393.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 17, 1993 (58 FR 66078), EPA

proposed standards to reduce the

discharge of water pollutants and

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from the pulp, paper, and paperboard

industry. The period for receiving

public comments on the proposed rule

ended on April 18, 1994; however, EPA

stated in the preamble to the proposed

rule that various industry groups were

collecting air emissions data that would

not be available until after the comment

period and that the Agency would still

consider that data for the promulgation

of the air emission standards.

The additional data being announced

today includes the following items

located in Air Docket A–92–40: (1) A

16-mill study conducted by the National

Council of the Paper Industry for Air

and Stream Improvement (NCASI),

items II–I–77 through II–I–79, IV–D–8,

IV–D1–20 through IV–D1–22, IV–J–1

through IV–J–4, IV–J–6 through IV–J–14,

and IV–J–16; (2) a 10-mill study

conducted by International Paper, items

IV–J–18 through IV–J–27; (3) a 5-mill

study conducted by the Texas Paper

Industry Environmental Committee,

items II–I–13 to II–I–18; (4) a condensate

study, items IV–D1–16 and IV–D1–18.

NCASI prepared summaries of their

testing program in NCASI technical

bulletins, items IV–D1–29, IV–D1–29A,

IV–D1–31, IV–D1–33 through IV–D1–35,

IV–D1–38, IV–D1–39, IV–D1–41, and

IV–D1–42. EPA has also prepared draft

summaries of the NCASI and Texas

studies, items IV–A–2 and IV–A–3,

respectively.

EPA is not soliciting comment on the

new data at this time so that the public

will have an expanded opportunity to

review the data. The reports added to

the Air Docket consist of multi-volume

test reports from numerous testing

programs and summaries of two of the

testing programs. The Agency will

solicit comment on these data in a

subsequent notice.

EPA also anticipates that additional

data regarding both air emissions and

effluent discharges will be published

after today’s notice. An additional

announcement will be posted at a later

date presenting further data and

soliciting comments of all announced

data.

Dated: February 13, 1995.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 95–4293 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[A–1–FRL–5156–8]

Clean Air Act Promulgation of

Extension of Attainment Date for

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to extend by

one year the attainment date for the

Hancock and Waldo Counties, Maine

ozone nonattainment area, a marginal

nonattainment area. This proposal is

based in part on monitored air quality

readings for the national ambient air

quality standard for ozone during 1993.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be received by March 24, 1995.