9802 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Teledyne Continental Motors Model O–470–

K, –L, –R reciprocating engines. These

engines are installed on but not limited to

Cessna 182 series aircraft.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent piston failure, which can result

in engine power loss, engine failure and loss

of the aircraft, accomplish the following:

(a) At the next access to the piston, top

overhaul, or major overhaul after the effective

date of this airworthiness directive,

whichever occurs first, remove from service

pistons, P/N SA626992, and replace with a

serviceable part.

Note: The affected pistons can be identified

by either a stamped-in P/N on the piston

dome (SA626992 or SA626992P15) or, by a

raised number (SA632932) along one of the

piston pin bosses on the underside of the

piston.

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Fort Worth

Special Certification Office. The request

should be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Fort Worth Special Certification

Office.

Note: Information concerning the existence

of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth

Special Certification Office.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

February 14, 1995.

James C. Jones,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–4250 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

19 CFR Part 353, 355, and 356

[Docket No. 941264–4364]

RIN 0625–AA45

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing

Duties; Article 1904 of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking; Extension of Comment

Period.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

issued an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking and request for comments as

the first step in the process of

conforming the existing antidumping,

countervailing duty, and NAFTA Article

1904 regulations to the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In an effort to

accommodate parties interested in

submitting comments in this rulemaking

proceeding, the Department is extending

the comment period announced in the

advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking.

DATES: Final comments should be

received on or before April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments

to Susan G. Esserman, Assistant

Secretary for Import Administration,

Central Records Unit, Room B–099, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania

Avenue and 14th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230. Comments

should be addressed: Attention:

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking/Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. Each person

submitting a comment should include

his or her name and address, and give

reasons for any recommendation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William D. Hunter, (202) 482–4412, or

David Mason Jr., (202) 482–4969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 3, 1995, the Department of

Commerce (the Department) published

an Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking and Request for Comments

in the Federal Register (Antidumping

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Article

1904 of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (‘‘Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking’’) (60 FR 80) as

the first step in the process of

conforming the Department’s existing

antidumping duty, countervailing duty,

and NAFTA Article 1904 regulations to

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In

its notification, the Department

requested initial comments by February

3, 1995 and final comments by February

24, 1995. In an effort to accommodate

parties interested in submitting

comments in this rulemaking

proceeding, the Department now

extends the time in which to file final

comments pursuant to the Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The

new due date for final comments is

April 3, 1995.

FORMAT AND NUMBER OF COPIES: Parties

should submit comments in the

following format: (1) Number each

comment in accordance with the

number designated for that issue as

indicated in the list of issues set forth

in the Department’s Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR 80;

January 3, 1995)); (2) begin each

comment on a separate page; (3)

concisely state the issue identified and

discussed in the comment; and (4)

provide a brief summary of the

comment (a maximum of 3 sentences)

and label this section ‘‘summary of the

comment.’’

To simplify the processing and

distribution of these comments, parties

are encouraged to submit documents in

electronic form accompanied by an

original and one paper copy. All

documents filed in electronic form must

be on DOS formatted 3.5’’ diskettes, and

must be prepared in either WordPerfect

format or a format that the WordPerfect

program can convert and import into

WordPerfect. Each comment submitted

should be on a separate file on the

diskette and labeled by the number

designated for that issue based upon the

list of issues outlined below.

Comments received on diskette will

continue to be made available to the

public on Internet under the following

address: FTP://

FWUX.FEDWORLD.GOV/PUB/IMPORT

In addition, the Department will

continue to make comments available to

the public on 3.5’’ diskettes, with

specific instructions on accessing

compressed data, at cost, and paper

copies available for reading and

photocopying in Room B–099 of the

Central Records Unit. Any questions

concerning file formatting, document

conversion, access on Internet, or other

file requirements should be addressed to

Andrew Lee Beller, Director of Central

Records, (202) 482–1248.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Parts 353,

355, and 356

Business and industry, Foreign trade,

Imports, Trade Practices.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Barbara R. Stafford,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4453 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 63

[WA22–1–6362; FRL–5157–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans, Washington;

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority;

Preconstruction and Operating

Permits; Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment

on its proposal to approve in part and

disapprove in part, numerous revisions

to the State of Washington
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9803

Implementation Plan submitted to EPA

by the Director of the Washington

Department of Ecology (WDOE) on

March 8, 1994. The revisions were

submitted in accordance with the

requirements of section 110 and Part D

of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the

Act). EPA is also proposing to take no

action on a number of provisions which

are unrelated to the purposes of the

implementation plan. EPA also invites

public comment on its proposal to

approve certain WDOE rules, and

certain rules of the Puget Sound Air

Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA)

and Southwest Air Pollution Control

Authority (SWAPCA), submitted to EPA

by the Director of WDOE on September

29, 1994, under the authority of section

112(l) of the Act in order to recognize

conditions and limitations established

pursuant to these rules as Federally

enforceable.

DATES: Comments must be postmarked

on or before March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: David Bray, Permits

Programs Manager, EPA, Air &

Radiation Branch (AT–082), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

Copies of the State’s request and other

information supporting this proposed

action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations: EPA, Air &

Radiation Branch (AT–082), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and

State of Washington, Department of

Ecology, 4550 Third Avenue SE, Lacey,

Washington 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David C. Bray, Permit Programs

Manager, EPA, Air & Radiation Branch

(AT–082), Seattle, Washington 98101,

(206) 553–4253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, Congress

amended the Clean Air Act to require,

among other things, revisions to state

implementation plans (SIPs) to attain

and maintain the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in areas

which violate those standards

(nonattainment areas). Under the

provisions of the Act, revisions to title

I, part D (nonattainment area) new

source review (NSR) rules were required

to be submitted by June 30, 1992 for

PM–10 nonattainment areas, by

November 15, 1992 for most ozone and

carbon monoxide nonattainment areas,

and by November 15, 1993 for the

remainder of the ozone and carbon

monoxide nonattainment areas. The

Washington Department of Ecology

(WDOE) amended its part D NSR rules

on August 20, 1993 and submitted them

to EPA on March 8, 1994 as a revision

to the Washington SIP.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 also established a new title V

which requires States to develop

operating permit programs for most

stationary sources. While title V

operating permit programs are not

intended to be part of the SIP, many

provisions of the SIP will interact

closely with the title V operating permit

program. As such, most States will be

revising provisions of their SIPs to

facilitate and improve the relationship

between their SIP and their title V

operating permit program. The WDOE

amended several provisions of its

current rules for air pollution sources

and submitted them to EPA on March 8,

1994 as a revision to the Washington

SIP.

Section 112(l) of the Act also enables

the EPA to approve State air toxics rules

or programs for the implementation and

enforcement of emission standards and

other requirements for hazardous air

pollutants. Approval is granted by the

EPA if the Agency finds that: (1) The

State rule or program is ‘‘no less

stringent’’ than the corresponding

Federal program or rule; (2) the State

program is supported by adequate

authority and resources; (3) the

schedule for implementation and

compliance of emission standards and

other requirements is sufficiently

expeditious; and (4) the rules are

otherwise in compliance with Federal

guidance.

On September 29, 1994, the Director

of the WDOE submitted an official

application to obtain approval for title V

permitting authorities (with the

exception of PSAPCA and SWAPCA) in

the State of Washington to implement

and enforce the statewide rules for

‘‘Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air

Pollutants’’ (WAC 173–460) as an

interim program to implement section

112(g) of the Act. The Director of the

WDOE also submitted an official

application on behalf of the PSAPCA

and SWAPCA to obtain approval for

those local agencies to implement and

enforce their own rules (portions of

PSAPCA Regulations I and III and

SWAPCA Regulation 460) for new

sources of toxic air pollutants.

II. Discussion of SIP Submittal

A. Description of SIP Submittal

On March 8, 1994, the Director of the

WDOE submitted all of Chapter 173–400

WAC ‘‘General Regulations for Air

Pollution Sources’’ (with the exception

of WAC 173–400–114) as amended on

August 20, 1993, as a revision to the

Washington SIP. The amended rules

include changes to the following

sections: WAC 173–400–030

‘‘Definitions;’’ WAC 173–400–040

‘‘General standards for maximum

emissions;’’ WAC 173–400–100

‘‘Registration;’’ WAC 173–400–105

‘‘Records, monitoring, and reporting;’’

WAC 173–400–110 ‘‘New source review

(NSR);’’ WAC 173–400–120 ‘‘Bubble

rules;’’ WAC 173–400–131 Issuance of

emission reduction credits;’’ WAC 173–

400–136 ‘‘Use of emission reduction

credits;’’ WAC 173–400–141

‘‘Prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD);’’ WAC 173–400–171 ‘‘Public

involvement;’’ WAC 173–400–180

‘‘Variance;’’ WAC 173–400–230

‘‘Regulatory actions;’’ and WAC 173–

400–250 ‘‘Appeals.’’ The amended rules

include the following new sections

which are revised and recodified

provisions from the previous rules:

WAC 173–400–112 ‘‘Requirements for

new sources in nonattainment areas;’’

and WAC 173–400–113 ‘‘Requirements

for new sources in attainment or

unclassifiable areas.’’ Finally, the

amended rules also include the

following entirely new sections: WAC

173–400–081 ‘‘Startup and shutdown;’’

WAC 173–400–091 ‘‘Voluntary limits on

emissions;’’ and WAC 173–400–107

‘‘Excess emissions.’’

With the exceptions discussed in

Section II.C. and II.D. below, EPA is

proposing to approve the submitted

version of Chapter 173–400 WAC as a

revision to the Washington SIP. Note

that those provisions of WAC 173–400

which were not revised on August 20,

1993 and are not discussed in Sections

II.B., II.C., and II.D., below were

previously approved by EPA on January

15, 1993 (58 FR 4578).

B. Discussion of Proposed Approvals

1. New Source Review

The existing provisions related to new

source review (NSR) were extensively

revised to meet the new requirements of

Title I, Part D of the Act as set forth in

the ‘‘State Implementation Plans:

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR

13498, April 16, 1992) and to make the

WDOE rules more consistent with EPA’s

regulations for new source review

programs in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I

Review of New Sources and

Modifications. Specifically:

a. The definitions of the following

terms were revised to be consistent with

EPA’s definitions: ‘‘actual emissions’’

(WAC 173–400–030(1)), ‘‘allowable

emissions’’ (WAC 173–400–030(5)),

‘‘best available control technology
9804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(BACT)’’ (WAC 173–400–030(9)), ‘‘Class

I area’’ (WAC 173–400–030(13)),

‘‘emission standard and emission

limitation’’ (WAC 173–400–030(22)),

‘‘major modification’’ (WAC 173–400–

030(39)), ‘‘net emission increase’’ (WAC

173–400–030(46)), ‘‘new source’’ (WAC

173–400–030(47)), ‘‘significant’’ (WAC

173–400–030(67)), ‘‘source’’ (WAC 173–

400–030(69)), and ‘‘volatile organic

compound (VOC)’’ (WAC 173–400–

030(81)). EPA finds that these revised

definitions are consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart

I, and therefore proposes to approve

them as revisions to the Washington

SIP.

b. New definitions of the following

terms were added to be consistent with

EPA’s regulations: ‘‘federal land

manager’’ (WAC 173–400–030(28)),

‘‘mandatory Class I federal area’’ (WAC

173–400–030(38)), ‘‘major stationary

source’’ (WAC 173–400–030(40)),

‘‘modification’’ (WAC 173–400–

030(43)), ‘‘order’’ (WAC 173–400–

030(53)), ‘‘order of approval’’ (WAC

173–400–030(54)), and ‘‘stationary

source’’ (WAC 173–400–030(74)). EPA

finds that these new definitions are

consistent with the requirements of 40

CFR part 51, subpart I, and therefore

proposes to approve them as revisions

to the Washington SIP.

c. WAC 173–400–110 ‘‘New Source

Review (NSR)’’ was revised to clarify

the applicability of the NSR rule and the

procedures for submittal of applications,

making completeness determinations

and final determinations, and appeals of

orders of approval. The section was also

revised by revoking provisions and

replacing them with two new sections

as described below. EPA finds that this

revised section is consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart

I, and therefore proposes to approve it

as a revision to the Washington SIP.

d. A new section WAC 173–400–112

‘‘Requirements for new sources in

nonattainment areas’’ was added which

specifies the requirements for new and

modified major and minor stationary

sources proposing to locate in

designated nonattainment areas. New

and modified minor stationary sources

must comply with all applicable

requirements, utilize the best available

control technology (BACT) for all air

pollutants, not violate the requirements

for reasonable further progress

established in the SIP and comply with

the State’s air toxics requirements

which EPA is today proposing to

approve pursuant to section 112(l) of the

Act (see below). New and modified

major sources must also comply with all

applicable requirements, meet the

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)

for the nonattainment air pollutant and

BACT for all other air pollutants,

comply with the requirements for

reasonable further progress by providing

adequate offsetting emission reductions

from existing sources in the

nonattainment area, demonstrate that all

other major sources owned or operated

in the State of Washington are in

compliance (or on a compliance

schedule) with applicable requirements,

demonstrate through an analysis of

alternatives that the benefits of the

project significantly outweigh the costs

imposed as a result of its location in the

nonattainment area, comply with the

requirements for prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) if

applicable, comply with the State’s air

toxics requirements, and comply with

the visibility protection requirements

for mandatory Federal Class I areas.

Section 189(e) of the Act requires part

D NSR programs for PM10

nonattainment areas to treat PM10

precursor emissions in the same manner

as PM10 emissions unless the

Administrator has determined that PM10

precursors do not significantly

contribute to violations of the PM10

NAAQS. However, WAC 173–400–112

does not address PM10 precursors nor

require them to be treated in the same

manner as PM10 emissions. The

Administrator has previously made a

determination that PM10 precursors do

not significantly contribute to PM10

violations in the Thurston County, and

Seattle, Tacoma, and Kent PM10

nonattainment areas (see 58 FR 40056

(July 27, 1993) and 59 FR 44324 (August

29, 1994)). The submitted control

strategies for the Wallula, Spokane, and

Yakima PM10 nonattainment areas

contain sufficient information on the

relative contribution of PM10 precursors

to the nonattainment problem to enable

the Administrator to determine at this

time that PM10 precursors do not

significantly contribute to violations of

the PM10 NAAQS in those three areas.

Based on the Administrator’s

determinations regarding PM10

precursors in the three remaining PM10

nonattainment areas, EPA finds this

new section to be consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart

I, and title I, part D of the Act, as set

forth in ‘‘State Implementation Plans:

General Preamble for the

Implementation of title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR

13498 (April 16, 1992)) and therefore

proposes to approve it as a revision to

the Washington SIP.

e. A new section WAC 173–400–113

‘‘Requirements for new sources in

attainment or nonclassifiable areas’’ was

added which specifies the requirements

for new and modified major and minor

stationary sources located in attainment

areas. New and modified minor

stationary sources must comply with all

applicable requirements, utilize the best

available control technology (BACT) for

all air pollutants, not delay the

attainment date for any nonattainment

area nor cause or contribute to a

violation of any ambient air quality

standard, and comply with the State’s

air toxics requirements. New and

modified major stationary sources must

comply with all applicable

requirements, utilize the best available

control technology (BACT) for all air

pollutants, not delay the attainment date

for any nonattainment area nor cause or

contribute to a violation of any ambient

air quality standard, comply with the

requirements for PSD if applicable,

comply with the State’s air toxics

requirements, and not cause an adverse

impact on visibility. EPA finds that this

new section is consistent with the

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart

I, and therefore proposes to approve it

as a revision to the Washington SIP.

2. Startup and Shutdown

The new section on ‘‘startup and

shutdown’’ (WAC 173–400–081)

establishes a requirement that State and

local air pollution control authorities

consider any physical constraints on the

ability of a source to comply with a

standard whenever an authority

promulgates a technology-based

emission standard or makes a control

technology determination. Where the

authority determines that the source is

not capable of achieving continuous

compliance with a standard during

startup or shutdown, the authority shall

establish appropriate limitations to

regulate the performance of the source

during startup or shutdown conditions.

The allowable emissions during startup

or shutdown must be accounted for in

any demonstration of attainment or

maintenance of ambient air quality

requirements. In addition, if such

limitations would allow emissions

during periods of startup or shutdown

which exceed those allowed for under

the current EPA-approved SIP, such

limitations shall not take effect until

approved by EPA as a revision to the

SIP. EPA finds this section to be

consistent with EPA requirements and

proposes to approve it as a revision to

the Washington SIP.

3. Excess Emissions

The new section on ‘‘excess

emissions’’ (WAC 173–400–107)

establishes requirements for reporting

periods of excess emissions and the

procedures and criteria for determining,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9805

in the context of an enforcement action,

when such excess emissions are

unavoidable and could therefore be

excused and not subject to penalty. The

section sets forth separate criteria for

periods of excess emissions resulting

from startup or shutdown, scheduled

maintenance, and upsets. EPA finds this

section to be consistent with its

requirements for SIP excess emissions

rules (February 15, 1983 memorandum

entitled ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions

During Startup, Shutdown,

Maintenance, and Malfunctions’’ from

Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant

Administrator for Air, Noise and

Radiation to Regional Administrators,

Regions 1–X) and therefore proposes to

approve it as a revision to the

Washington SIP. Note that this new

section replaces the provisions for

excess emissions which were formerly

contained in WAC 173–400–105(5) and

EPA also proposes to approve the repeal

of those provisions.

4. Voluntary Limits on Emissions

The new section for voluntary limits

on emissions (WAC 173–400–091)

provides a mechanism for the owner or

operator of a source to apply for, and

obtain, enforceable conditions that limit

the source’s potential to emit. Such

limitations would be contained in a

‘‘regulatory order’’ issued by the WDOE

or a local air authority, after public

notice and an opportunity for comment,

and would include monitoring,

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements sufficient to ensure that

the source complies with the

limitations.

On June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274), EPA

published criteria for approving and

incorporating into the SIP regulatory

programs for the issuance of Federally

enforceable State operating permits.

Permits issued pursuant to an operating

permit program approved into the SIP as

meeting these criteria may be

considered Federally enforceable. The

EPA has encouraged States to develop

such programs in conjunction with title

V operating permits programs to enable

sources to limit their potential to emit

to below the title V applicability

thresholds. (See the guidance document

entitled, ‘‘Limitation of Potential to Emit

With Respect to Title V Applicability

Thresholds,’’ dated September 18, 1992,

from John Calcagni, Director, Air

Quality Management Division, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS), Office of Air and Radiation,

U.S. EPA.) On November 3, 1993, the

EPA announced in a guidance

document entitled, ‘‘Approaches to

Creating Federally Enforceable

Emissions Limits,’’ signed by John S.

Seitz, Director, OAQPS, that this

mechanism could be extended to create

Federally enforceable limits for

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP) if the program were approved

pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act.

The June 28, 1989 Federal Register

notice establishes five criteria which

must be met in order for EPA to approve

a State operating permit program into

the SIP: (1) The program must be

submitted to and approved by the EPA;

(2) the program must impose a legal

obligation on the operating permit

holders to comply with the terms and

conditions of the permit, and permits

that do not conform with the June 28,

1989 criteria or the EPA’s underlying

regulations shall be deemed not

Federally enforceable; (3) any permit

issued under the program must contain

terms and conditions that are at least a

stringent as any requirements contained

in the SIP, enforceable under the SIP, or

any section 112 or other CAA

requirement, and may not allow for the

waiver of any CAA requirement; (4) any

permit issued under the program must

contain conditions that are permanent,

quantifiable, and enforceable as a

practical matter; and (5) any permit that

is intended to be Federally enforceable

must be issued subject to public

participation and must be provided to

the EPA in proposed form on a timely

basis.

EPA finds that WAC 173–400–091

meets the requirements for Federally

enforceable State operating permit

programs as set forth in the June 28,

1989 Federal Register (54 FR 27274)

and proposes to approve it as a revision

to the Washington SIP. Furthermore,

EPA proposes that, after final approval

to this section, ‘‘regulatory orders’’

issued pursuant to the EPA-approved

WAC 173–400–091, and terms and

conditions contained therein, would be

enforceable by the EPA and by citizens

under section 304 of the Act regardless

of whether such orders were issued

prior to EPA approval of this section.

However, such orders would have to

have been issued after the effective date

of WAC 173–400–091 (i.e., September

20, 1993) in accordance with all of the

provisions set forth in that section.

Sources could, thereafter, rely on

‘‘regulatory orders’’ issued pursuant to

this section as a means to limit their

potential to emit criteria pollutants and

the pollutants regulated under the PSD

provisions of the SIP in order to avoid

requirements which would otherwise

apply to ‘‘major stationary sources.’’

EPA requests comment on the

appropriateness of making Federally

enforceable, as of the date of EPA

approval, the terms and conditions of an

order that was issued prior to EPA’s

approval of a State or local rule,

provided the order itself complied with

all of the requirements of the EPAapproved rule.

5. Miscellaneous Changes

The remaining changes to WAC 173–

400–030 ‘‘Definitions;’’ and the changes

to WAC 173–400–040 ‘‘General

standards for maximum emissions;’’

WAC 173–400–100 ‘‘Registration;’’

WAC 173–400–105 ‘‘Records,

monitoring, and reporting;’’ WAC 173–

400–171 ‘‘Public involvement;’’ ‘‘ WAC

173–400–230 ‘‘Regulatory actions;’’ and

WAC 173–400–250 ‘‘Appeals’’ are

primarily administrative in nature to

conform those sections to current State

statutes and to other provisions of WAC

173–400. EPA finds these changes to be

consistent with EPA’s requirements and

proposes to approve the rules as revised.

C. Discussion of Proposed Disapprovals

On January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578),

EPA disapproved numerous provisions

of Chapter 173–400 WAC. These

provisions were resubmitted as part of

the March 8, 1994 submittal without the

necessary changes to make them

approvable. EPA is therefore proposing

to again disapprove the following

provisions. A complete discussion of

the deficiencies and the reasons for

disapproval can be found in the

September 28, 1992 Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (57 FR 44530).

EPA is proposing to disapprove WAC

173–400–040(1) (c) and (d) which allow

for the establishment of alternative

opacity limits. EPA is proposing to

disapprove the second paragraph of

WAC 173–400–040(6) which provides

an exception to the sulfur dioxide

emission limitation. EPA is proposing to

disapprove the exception provision in

WAC 173–400–050(3) which allows for

the establishment of an alternative

oxygen correction factor for combustion

and incineration sources. EPA is

proposing to disapprove WAC 173–400–

180 Variance which allows the WDOE

to grant a variance to the requirements

governing the quality, nature, duration,

or extent of discharges of air

contaminants. EPA is proposing to

disapprove WAC 173–400–120 Bubble

Rules, WAC 173–400–131 Issuance of

Emission Reduction Credits, and WAC

173–400–136 Use of Emission

Reduction Credits as these regulations

do not comply with the requirements of

EPA’s Final Emissions Trading Policy

Statement (51 FR 43814, December 4,

1986).

EPA is proposing to disapprove WAC

173–400–141 Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) as it does not meet
9806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166.

WDOE has adopted, by reference, EPA’s

PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) as in

effect on March 3, 1993. However,

significant changes to EPA’s regulations

became effective on July 20, 1993,

August 19, 1993 and June 3, 1994. Note

that the PSD provisions of the

Washington SIP are currently

disapproved and EPA’s PSD regulations

have been promulgated into the

Washington SIP (see 40 CFR 52.2497).

Until WAC 173–400–141 is revised to

meet current EPA requirements and is

approved by EPA, WDOE will continue

to issue PSD permits under a partial

delegation of the EPA PSD permit

program.

D. Provisions Unrelated to the SIP

EPA is proposing to take no action on

WAC 173–400–040(2) Fallout; WAC

173–400–040(4) Odors; WAC 173–400–

070(7) Sulfuric Acid Plants; WAC 173–

400–075 Emission Standards for

Sources Emitting Hazardous Air

Pollutants; and WAC 173–400–115

Standards of Performance for New

Sources, as these provisions are not

related to the criteria pollutants

regulated under the SIP.

III. Discussion of Section 112(l)

Submittal

A. Description of Submittal

On September 29, 1994, the Director

of the WDOE submitted WAC 173–460

‘‘Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air

Pollutants,’’ SWAPCA Regulation 460

‘‘Controls for New Sources of Toxic Air

Pollutants,’’ and PSAPCA Regulation I,

Article 6 ‘‘New Source Review’’ and

Regulation III, Article 2 ‘‘Review of

Toxic Air Contaminant Sources’’ for

approval under section 112(l) of the Act.

These provisions establish requirements

for preconstruction permits for new and

modified sources of HAP.

B. Discussion of Proposed Approval

1. Permits to Construct for New and

Modified Sources of Hazardous Air

Pollutants

a. WAC 173–460 ‘‘Controls for New

Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants’’

establishes the State of Washington’s

procedures for regulating new and

modified stationary sources of toxic air

pollutants. It is a comprehensive

regulation which covers more pollutants

than the 189 HAP listed in section

112(b) of the Act. In addition, it applies

to most stationary sources of toxic air

pollutants and not just major stationary

sources. Finally, it requires both the

application of the best available control

technology for toxics (T–BACT) and a

demonstration of the protection of

human health and safety.

WAC 173–460–010 ‘‘Purpose’’ sets

forth the purpose of this regulation and

the policy of the State of Washington in

regulating toxic air pollutants. WAC

173–460–020 ‘‘Definitions’’ incorporates

all of the definitions from WAC 173–400

‘‘General Regulations for Air Pollution

Sources’’ and adds several new

definitions specific to the control of

toxic air pollutants. WAC 173–460–030

‘‘Requirements, applicability, and

exemptions’’ identifies the source

categories subject to WAC 173–460 and

certain general and specific exemptions

from the regulation.

WAC 173–460–040 ‘‘New source

review’’ supplements the new source

review requirements of WAC 173–400–

110 by adding additional requirements

for toxic air pollutant sources.

Specifically, it requires any new or

modified source subject to WAC 173–

460 to submit a notice of construction

application and obtain a regulatory

order approving the notice of

construction prior to commencing

construction. This section requires any

new or modified stationary source to

comply with all applicable

requirements, utilize T–BACT, and

demonstrate that toxic air pollutant

emissions from the source are

sufficiently low as to protect human

health and safety from potential

carcinogenic and/or other toxic effects.

Source categories for which WDOE has

established T–BACT by rule are

exempted from the requirement to

demonstrate that their emissions protect

human health and safety. This section

also specifies the process for making

preliminary determinations, including

public notice and opportunity for public

comment, making final determinations,

and appealing the permitting authority’s

decision.

WAC 173–460–050 ‘‘Requirement to

quantify emissions’’ requires new

sources to quantify emissions sufficient

to perform the analyses required by

WAC 173–460 and sets forth the

procedures for making appropriate

emissions calculations. WAC 173–460–

060 ‘‘Control technology requirements’’

establishes the requirement for new and

modified sources of toxic air pollutants

to utilize T–BACT and establishes T–

BACT requirements by rule for

perchloroethylene dry cleaners,

petroleum solvent dry cleaning systems,

chromic acid plating and anodizing,

solvent metal cleaners, and abrasive

blasting.

WAC 173–460–070 ‘‘Ambient impact

requirement’’ requires the owner or

operator of a new or modified source of

toxic air pollutants to demonstrate that

emissions from the source are

sufficiently low as to protect human

health and safety from potential

carcinogenic and/or other toxic effects.

Compliance with this requirement must

be demonstrated using the procedures

set forth in WAC 173–460. WAC 173–

460–080 ‘‘Demonstrating ambient

impact compliance’’ requires the owner

or operator of a new or modified air

toxics source to complete an analysis

which demonstrates compliance with

the acceptable source impact levels

(ASIL) established in WAC 173–460.

The analysis must utilize dispersion

modeling techniques in accordance with

EPA guidelines, unless the source

qualifies for using specified small

quantity emission rate tables.

WAC 173–460–090 ‘‘Second tier

analysis’’ provides an alternative

approach for demonstrating acceptable

impacts if the owner or operator of a

proposed new source or modification

could not demonstrate compliance with

the acceptable source impact levels

using the procedures specified in WAC

173–460–080. This section allows the

owner or operator of a new or modified

source to petition WDOE to perform a

second tier analysis evaluation to

determine a means of compliance with

WAC 173–460–070 and –080 by

establishing allowable emissions for the

source. A second tier analysis may be

requested when a source wishes to more

accurately characterize risks, to justify

risk greater than acceptable source

impact levels, or to otherwise modify

assumptions to more accurately

represent risks. The WDOE may approve

emissions of air toxics from a source

where ambient concentrations would

exceed acceptable source impact levels

only if it determines that T–BACT is

utilized and that emissions of certain air

toxics are not likely to result in an

increased cancer risk of more than one

in one-hundred thousand. If the WDOE

approves the second tier analysis, the

notice of construction approval,

following public notice and opportunity

for comment, shall specify allowable

emissions consistent with WDOE’s

determination and include all

requirements necessary to assure that

conditions of WAC 173–460 and WAC

173–400 are met.

WAC 173–460–100 ‘‘Request for risk

management decision’’ provides an

alternative approach for sources that

emit certain toxic air pollutants that are

likely to result in an increased cancer

risk of more than one in one-hundred

thousand. The owner or operator of

such a source may request that WDOE

make a risk management decision which

would allow such greater risk. To

receive such approval, the owner or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9807

operator of such source must propose

allowable emission limits for the source

that represent all known available

reasonable control technology, apply all

known available air toxic pollution

prevention methods, and demonstrate

that the proposal will result in a greater

benefit to the environment as a whole.

The source may also propose measures

that would reduce community exposure

to comparable toxic air pollutants.

WDOE’s decision on any request for a

risk management decision will follow a

public notice and opportunity for public

comment, including a public hearing,

and appropriate conditions on emission

controls, pollution prevention, or other

measures, shall be included in the

approval of the notice of construction.

WAC 173–460–110 ‘‘Acceptable

source impact levels’’ establishes the

process that the WDOE uses to establish

the acceptable source impact levels in

this regulation. WAC 173–460–120

‘‘Scientific review and amendment of

acceptable source impact levels and

lists’’ establishes an ongoing process for

the scientific review of information on

toxic air pollutants and acceptable

source impact levels. WAC 173–460–

130 ‘‘Fees’’ authorizes the WDOE or

local air authority to charge fees for the

review of notices of construction. WAC

173–460–140 ‘‘Remedies’’ establishes

the civil and criminal enforcement

authorities for violations of WAC 173–

460. Finally, WAC 173–460–150 ‘‘Class

A toxic air pollutants: Known, probable

and potential human carcinogens and

acceptable source impact levels’’ and

WAC 173–460–160 ‘‘Class B toxic air

pollutants and acceptable source impact

levels’’ list the acceptable source impact

levels for the toxic air pollutants

regulated by WAC 173–460. Note that

these levels are criteria used in a permit

review process and are not standards

which would be enforceable against

sources by either the State or EPA.

EPA is proposing to approve WAC

173–460 under section 112(l) of the Act

in order to recognize regulatory orders

approving notices of construction as

Federally enforceable. EPA is also

proposing to approve the provisions of

WAC 173–400 that are used to

implement the requirements of WAC

173–460 (specifically, WAC 173–400–

110, –112, –113, and –171) under

section 112(l) of the Act. If approved,

permitting authorities would be able to

utilize regulatory orders issued pursuant

to WAC 173–460 to establish Federally

enforceable limits on potential to emit

for new and modified stationary sources

of HAP and to make any case-by-case

MACT determinations required under

section 112(g) of the Act.

The EPA believes it has authority

under section 112(l) to approve State

preconstruction review programs for

HAP directly under section 112(l). The

EPA is therefore proposing approval of

WAC 173–460 now so that permitting

authorities in Washington may begin to

issue Federally enforceable regulatory

orders as soon as possible.

EPA is aware that WAC 173–460 was

not designed specifically to implement

section 112(g) of the Act. Furthermore,

EPA has acknowledged that States may

encounter difficulties implementing

section 112(g) prior to promulgation of

final EPA regulations (see June 28, 1994

memorandum entitled, ‘‘Guidance for

Initial Implementation of Section

112(g),’’ signed by John Seitz, Director

of the Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards). However, EPA believes

that WAC 173–460 can serve as a

procedural vehicle to make Federally

enforceable any case-by-case MACT

determinations required by section

112(g) during the transition period

between title V approval in Washington

and EPA approval of WDOE regulations

to implement EPA’s final section 112(g)

regulations. EPA believes WAC 173–460

will be adequate for this transition

period because it applies to any new

source of HAP and any modification to

an existing source of HAP. As such, any

major source which would be subject to

section 112(g) of the Act would be

required by WAC 173–460 to obtain a

regulatory order containing a T–BACT

determination. Furthermore, WAC 173–

460 allows permitting authorities to

select control measures that would meet

MACT, as defined in section 112 of the

Act, and after EPA approval, to

incorporate these measures into a

Federally enforceable regulatory order.

b. SWAPCA Regulation 460 ‘‘Controls

for New Sources of Toxic Air

Pollutants’’ adopts WAC 173–460 by

reference as a local regulation. As

discussed in Section III.B.1. above, this

WAC 173–460 meets all of EPA’s

requirements for a permit to construct

program to establish Federally

enforceable limitations on new and

modified stationary sources of HAP.

EPA is therefore proposing to approve

SWAPCA Regulation 460 under the

authority of section 112(l) of the Act.

Note that EPA is proposing to approve

WAC 173–460 which is applicable

statewide and, by State law, remains in

effect in all areas of the State regardless

of any local agency regulations. If

SWAPCA Regulation 460 is revised or

revoked, SWAPCA is approved to

implement WAC 173–460 as the new

source review program for HAP in

SWAPCA’s jurisdiction until such time

as EPA approves the revision or

revocation of SWAPCA Regulation 460.

c. PSAPCA Regulation I, Article 6

‘‘New Source Review’’ and Regulation

III, Article 2 ‘‘Review of Toxic Air

Contaminant Sources’’ contain

requirements for the construction and

modification of stationary sources of

HAP. Regulation I, Article 6 establishes

a comprehensive new source review

program that sets forth the process for

submitting a ‘‘Notice of Construction

and Application for Approval’’ and

granting an ‘‘Order of Approval’’ or

‘‘Order to Prevent Construction.’’ It

applies to new and modified sources of

any air contaminant and includes

requirements for the content of

applications, payment of ‘‘Notice of

Construction’’ review fees, and

requirements for public notice and

comment. Furthermore, Section

6.07(c)(3) requires the utilization of the

best available control technology

(BACT) for all air contaminants emitted

by new and modified stationary sources.

Regulation III, Article 2 establishes

additional requirements for new and

modified sources of toxic air

contaminants and applies to all sources

required to submit a ‘‘notice of

construction and application for

approval’’ under Regulation I, Article 6

except for certain source categories for

which PSAPCA has established T–

BACT by rule. Section 2.01

‘‘Applicability’’ states that Article 2

applies to all sources of toxic air

contaminants except for the following

source categories for which PSAPCA

has established T–BACT by rule:

asbestos removal operations, chromic

acid plating and anodizing tanks,

solvent metal cleaners,

perchloroethylene dry cleaning systems,

petroleum solvent dry cleaning systems,

gasoline storage and dispensing

operations, graphic arts systems, can

and paper coating operations, motor

vehicle and mobile equipment coating

operations, polyester/vinylester/gelcoat/

resin operations, coatings and ink

manufacturing, and ethylene oxide

sterilizers and aerators. Note that

sources exempt from the additional

requirements of this section are not

exempted from the requirement of

Regulation I, Article 6 ‘‘New Source

Review.’’ Section 2.02 ‘‘National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants’’ requires all sources subject

to Article 2 to comply with any

applicable provision of 40 CFR part 61.

Section 2.03 ‘‘New or Altered Toxic Air

Contaminant Sources’’ requires that no

‘‘Notice of Construction and

Application for Approval’’ shall be

issued under Regulation I, Article 6 for

a new or modified source subject to
9808 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1 The EPA intends to issue guidance addressing

the technical aspects of how these criteria pollutant

limits may be recognized for purposes of limiting

a source’s potential to emit of HAP to below section

112 major source levels.

Article 2 unless the source owner or

operator demonstrates that the toxic air

contaminant emissions from the source

will not result in the exceedence of any

Acceptable Source Impact Level (ASIL)

contained in Appendix A of Regulation

III and does not otherwise cause an air

pollution problem.

These PSAPCA regulations have

previously been approved as part of the

Washington SIP for control of criteria

pollutants. They also meet all of EPA’s

requirements for a permit to construct

program to establish Federally

enforceable limitations on new and

modified stationary sources of HAP.

Furthermore, the WDOE has certified

that, pursuant to Washington State law,

the PSAPCA regulations are at least as

stringent as corresponding State

regulations, in this case, WAC 173–460

which EPA is also proposing to approve.

EPA is therefore proposing to approve

these PSAPCA regulations under the

authority of section 112(l) of the Act.

Note that EPA is proposing to approve

WAC 173–460 which is applicable

statewide and, by State law, remains in

effect in all areas of the State regardless

of any local agency regulations. If

PSAPCA Regulation I, Article 6 or

Regulation III, Article 2 is revised or

revoked, PSAPCA is approved to

implement WAC 173–460 as the new

source review program for HAP in

PSAPCA’s jurisdiction until such time

as EPA approves the revision or

revocation of PSAPCA’s regulations.

2. Voluntary Limits on Emissions

The new section for voluntary limits

on emissions (WAC 173–400–091)

provides a mechanism for the owner or

operator of a source to apply for, and

obtain, enforceable conditions that limit

the source’s potential to emit. The

provisions of this section are applicable,

as a matter of State law, to any air

contaminant and not just the criteria

pollutants regulated under the EPAapproved Washington SIP. In addition

to requesting approval into the SIP,

WDOE has also requested approval of

this section under section 112(l) of the

Act for the purpose of creating Federally

enforceable limitations on the potential

to emit of HAP. Approval under section

112(l) is necessary because the proposed

SIP approval discussed in Section II.B.4.

above only extends to the control of

criteria pollutants. Federally enforceable

limits on criteria pollutants (i.e., VOC’s

or PM–10) may have the incidental

effect of limiting certain HAP listed

pursuant to section 112(b).1 However,

section 112 of the Act provides the

underlying authority for controlling all

HAP emissions.

The EPA believes that the five

approval criteria for approving State

operating permit programs into the SIP,

as specified in the June 28, 1989 Federal

Register notice, are also appropriate for

evaluating and approving State

operating permit programs under

section 112(l) of the Act. The November

3, 1993 guidance document entitled

‘‘Approaches to Creating Federally

Enforceable Emissions Limits,’’ signed

by John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS,

indicated that this mechanism could be

extended to create Federally enforceable

limits for emissions of HAP if the

program were approved pursuant to

section 112(l) of the Act. The June 28,

1989 notice does not address HAP

simply because it was written prior to

the 1990 amendments to section 112,

not because it establishes requirements

unique to criteria pollutants. In addition

to meeting the criteria in the June 28,

1989 notice, a State operating permit

program that addresses HAP must meet

the statutory criteria for approval under

section 112(l)(5). Section 112(l) allows

the EPA to approve a program only if it:

(1) contains adequate authority to assure

compliance with any section 112

standards or requirements; (2) is

supported by adequate resources; (3)

provides for an expeditious schedule for

assuring compliance with section 112

requirements; and (4) is otherwise likely

to satisfy the objectives of the Act. The

EPA plans to codify the approval

criteria for programs limiting potential

to emit of HAP, such as State operating

permit programs, through amendments

to Subpart E of Part 63, the regulations

promulgated to implement section

112(l) of the Act. (See 58 FR 62262,

November 26, 1993.) The EPA currently

anticipates that these regulatory criteria,

as they apply to State operating permit

programs, will mirror those set forth in

the June 28, 1989 Federal Register

notice. The EPA currently anticipates

that since State operating permit

programs approved pursuant to section

112(l) prior to the planned Subpart E

revisions will have been approved as

meeting these criteria, further approval

actions for those programs will not be

necessary.

The EPA believes it has authority

under section 112(l) to approve

programs to limit potential to emit of

HAP directly under section 112(l) prior

to this revision to Subpart E. The EPA

is therefore proposing approval of this

section now so that permitting

authorities in Washington may begin to

issue Federally enforceable regulatory

orders as soon as possible.

As discussed in Section II.B.4. above,

EPA believes that this section meets the

approval criteria specified in the June

28, 1989 Federal Register notice.

Regarding the statutory criteria of

section 112(l)(5) referred to above, the

EPA believes this section contains

adequate authority to assure compliance

with section 112 requirements because

the third criterion of the June 28, 1989

notice is met, that is, because the

program does not allow for the waiver

of any section 112 requirement. Sources

that become minor through a permit

issued pursuant to this program would

still be required to meet section 112

requirements applicable to non-major

sources. Regarding the requirement for

adequate resources, the EPA believes

WDOE has demonstrated that it can

provide for adequate resources to

support the synthetic minor program.

Permitting authorities currently cover

sources not subject to title V under a

‘‘registration’’ program which assesses

fees adequate to cover the costs of

implementing and enforcing the terms

of regulatory orders issued under this

section. The EPA will monitor each

permitting authority’s implementation

of this section to ensure that adequate

resources are in fact available. The EPA

also believes that this section provides

for an expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance with section 112

requirements. This program will be used

allow a source to establish a voluntary

limit on potential to emit to avoid being

subject to a CAA requirement applicable

on a particular date. Nothing in this

section would allow a source to avoid

or delay compliance with a CAA

requirement if it fails to obtain an

appropriate Federally enforceable limit

by the relevant deadline. Finally, the

EPA believes it is consistent with the

intent of section 112 of the Act for

States to provide a mechanism through

which sources may avoid classification

as a major source by obtaining a

Federally enforceable limit on potential

to emit.

EPA therefore, proposes to approve

WAC 173–400–091 under the authority

of section 112(l) of the Act.

Furthermore, EPA proposes that, after

final approval to this section,

‘‘regulatory orders’’ issued pursuant to

the EPA-approved WAC 173–400–091,

and terms and conditions for HAP

contained therein, would be enforceable

by the EPA and by citizens under

section 304 of the Act regardless of

whether such orders were issued prior

to EPA approval of this section.

However, such orders would have to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9809

have been issued after the effective date

of WAC 173–400–091 (i.e., September

20, 1993) in accordance with all of the

provisions set forth in that Section.

Sources could, thereafter, rely on

‘‘regulatory orders’’ issued pursuant to

this section as a means to limit their

potential to emit of HAP in order to

avoid requirements which would

otherwise apply to a ‘‘major stationary

source’’ of HAP. EPA requests comment

on the appropriateness of making

Federally enforceable the terms and

conditions of an order that was issued

prior to EPA’s approval of a State or

local rule, provided the order itself

complied with all of the requirements of

the EPA-approved rule.

IV. Summary of Action

EPA is soliciting public comment on

its proposed approval in part and

disapproval in part of revisions to the

State of Washington Implementation

Plan. Specifically, EPA is proposing to

approve:

WAC 173–400 as in effect on

September 20, 1993, except for the

following sections: –040(1)(c) and (d);

–040(2); –040(4); the second paragraph

of –040(6); the exception provision in

–050(3); –070(7); –075; –115; –120;

–131; –136; –141; and –180.

EPA is proposing to disapprove the

following:

WAC 173–400–040(1)(c) and (d), the

second paragraph of –040(6), the

exception provision in –050(3), –120,

–131, –136, –141, and –180.

EPA is proposing to take no action on

the following:

WAC 173–400–040(2), –040(4),

–070(7), –075, and –115.

Note that WAC 173–400–114 was not

submitted for inclusion in the

Washington SIP.

EPA is also soliciting public comment

on its proposed approval of certain State

and local agency regulations pursuant to

the authority of section 112(l) of the Act.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to

approve the following:

WAC 173–460 as in effect on February

14, 1994;

WAC 173–400–091; –110; 112; 113;

and 171 as in effect on September 20,

1993;

SWAPCA Regulation 460 as in effect

on June 15, 1993; and

PSAPCA Regulation I, Article 6 as in

effect on September 17, 1993 and

Regulation III, Articles 1 and 2 as in

effect on September 17, 1993.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on all aspects of this proposed

approval in part and disapproval in

part. Comments should be submitted in

triplicate, to the address listed in the

front of this Notice. Public comments

postmarked by March 24, 1995, will be

considered in the final rulemaking

action taken by EPA.

Administrative Review

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 SIP action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2224), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

Table 2 SIP actions from E.O. 12866

review.

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. Similarly,

approvals of State rules under section

112(l) do not create any new

requirements. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval and the section

112(l) approval do not impose any new

requirements, I certify that they do 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).

EPA’s disapproval of the State request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

State submittal does not affect its State

enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not impose any new Federal

requirements.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP or

approval of any State rules pursuant to

section 112(l). Each request for revision

to any SIP or approval under section

112(l) shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact or entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that the

proposed approval of the State and local

air toxics rules under section 112(l) is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, and Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,
9810 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4291 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WA24–1–6519b; FRL–5143–8]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Washington for the Northwest Air

Pollution Authority (NWAPA). The SIP

revision was submitted by the State to

satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act

requirements for the control of air

pollution in Island, Skagit, and

Whatcom Counties. In the Final Rules

Section of this Federal Register, the

EPA is approving the State’s SIP

revision as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If the EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by March

24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Montel Livingston,

Environmental Protection Specialist

(AT–082), Air Programs Section, at the

EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

proposed rule are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 10, Air Programs

Section, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA

98101.

Washington State Department of

Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, PV–11,

Olympia, WA 98504–7600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie Cooper, Air Programs Branch

(AT–082), EPA, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–6917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3863 Filed 2–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–29–01–6537; A–1–FRL–5156–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Emission Banking,

Trading, and Averaging

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing the

approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

Massachusetts. This revision establishes

a program of emission reduction credit

(ERC) banking and trading whereby

companies who reduce emissions below

the level required by State and federal

regulation can ‘‘bank’’ the surplus

reductions for use at a later date or for

transfer to another party. This program

has been adopted as a voluntary

economic incentive program pursuant to

EPA’s interim guidance on Economic

Incentive Programs. The intended effect

of this action is to facilitate costeffective compliance with other

emission reduction requirements

required by the Massachusetts SIP. This

action is being taken under the Clean

Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg.,

Boston, MA 02203–2211. Copies of the

State submittal and EPA’s technical

support document are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment at the

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, One Congress Street,

10th floor, Boston, MA and the Division

of Air Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter

Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven A. Rapp, (617) 565–9024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 23, 1993, EPA published

proposed rules for Economic Incentive

Programs (58 FR 11110). The proposal

set forth Economic Incentive Program

(EIP) rules which could be adopted by

certain ozone and carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas which were

mandated by sections 182(g)(3),

182(g)(5), 187(d)(3), and 187(g) of the

Clean Air Act (Act) to use or consider

as one of three options the use of an

economic incentive program to correct

attainment plan deficiencies. The notice

also served as interim guidance for

States to develop discretionary EIPs

which is allowed for any criteria

pollutant in all areas.

On February 9, 1994, the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP)

submitted 310 CMR 7.00 appendix B:

Emission Banking, Trading, and

Averaging as a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This

regulation was submitted as a

discretionary EIP and is described as

emission limiting due to the fact that the

regulation places limits on total mass

emissions, emission related parameters,

or specifies levels of emission

reductions that participating sources

must meet. The regulation is designed to

utilize a federally enforceable permit

mechanism or single-source SIP

revisions to ensure the enforceability of

the ERCs. It replaces the former 310

CMR 7.00 appendix B which dealt

exclusively with emissions averaging.

The regulation deals separately with

ERC banking and trading and with

emissions averaging. Section 310 CMR

7.00 appendix B(3) establishes the

requirements of the ERC banking and

trading portion of the program by which

persons and companies who reduce

emissions below the level required by

State and federal regulation can ‘‘bank’’

the surplus reductions for use at a later

date or for transfer to another party. The

goal of this part of the program is to

encourage the creation and trading of

surplus ERCs for the purpose of offsets,

netting, and cost-effective compliance

without interfering with any applicable

requirements concerning attainment,

reasonable further progress, or any other

applicable air pollution control

requirements. As such, 310 CMR 7.00

Appendix B(3) is intended to promote

innovative and cost-effective