[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14320-14326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1343]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Puget 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 14322]]

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.

[[Page 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-for-profit 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

[[Page 14324]]

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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 63.99  Delegated Federal authorities.

    (a) * * *
    (47) * * *
    (i) * * *

                                                   Delegation Status for Part 63 Standards--Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subpart                    Description            Ecology    BCAA \2\    NWAPA \3\   OAPCA \4\   PSCAA \5\  SCAPCA \6\  SWAPCA \7\   YRCAA \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------\1\---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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   ..........      X \5\   ..........          X
N.........................  Chromium Electroplating.....  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
O.........................  Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers..  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
Q.........................  Industrial Process Cooling    ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Towers.
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--      ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Epoxy.
X.........................  Secondary Lead Smelting.....  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
Y.........................  Marine Tank Vessel Loading..  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
AA........................  Phosphoric Acid               ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Manufacturing Plants.
BB........................  Phosphate Fertilizers         ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Production Plants.
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 &     ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Rework.
HH........................  Oil and Natural Gas           ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Production Facilities.
II........................  Shipbuilding and Ship Repair  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
JJ........................  Wood Furniture Manufacturing  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Operations.
KK........................  Printing and Publishing In-   ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             dustry.

[[Page 14325]]

 
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  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Devices, Recovery Devices
                             and Routing to a Fuel Gas
                             System or Process.
TT........................  Equipment Leaks--Control      ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Level 1.
UU........................  Equipment Leaks--Control      ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Level 2.
VV........................  Oil-Water Separators and      ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Organic-Water Separators.
WW........................  Storage Vessels (Tanks)--     ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Control Level 2.
YY........................  Source Categories: Generic    ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             MACT.
CCC.......................  Steel Pickling--HCl Process   ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Facilities and Hydrochloric
                             Acid Regeneration Plants.
DDD.......................  Mineral Wool Production.....  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
EEE.......................  Hazardous Waste Combustors..  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
GGG.......................  Pharmaceuticals Production..  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
HHH.......................  Natural Gas Transmission and  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Storage Facilities.
III.......................  Flexible Polyurethane Foam    ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Production.
JJJ.......................  Polymers and Resins IV......  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X   ..........          X
LLL.......................  Portland Cement               ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Manufacturing.
MMM.......................  Pesticide Active Ingredient   ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Production.
NNN.......................  Wool Fiberglass               ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
                             Manufacturing.
PPP.......................  Polyether Polyols Production  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
TTT.......................  Primary Lead Smelting.......  ..........  ..........          X   ..........          X
XXX.......................  Ferroalloys Production:       ..........  ..........          X   ..........         X
                             Ferromanganese &
                             Silicomanganese.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Washington Department of Ecology.
\2\ Benton Clean Air Authority.
\3\ Northwest Air Pollution Authority (7/1/99).
\4\ Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority.
\5\ Puget 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).
\6\ Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority.
\7\ Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority (8/1/98).
\8\ Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority.
\9\ Authorities 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.''
\10\ Subpart 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.
\11\ Subpart 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

[[Page 14326]]

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