[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17300]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 15, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ16-1-5820; FRL-4884-5]

 

Clean Air Act Limited Approval/Disapproval and Promulgation of 
PM10 Implementation Plan for Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes limited approval/disapproval of the State 
implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Arizona for the 
purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). 
The implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain 
Federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment area PM10 SIP 
for the Hayden/Miami area in Arizona.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
August 15, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Robert Pallerino, Plans 
Development Section (A-2-2), EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105. Copies of the State's submittal and other information are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Toxics 
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Pallarino, Plans 
Development Section (A-2-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone (415) 744-1212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of title I of the 
Act. The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's 
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions 
submitted under title I of the Act, including those State submittals 
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see 
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 
1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in 
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more 
detailed discussion of the interpretations of title I advanced in this 
proposal and the supporting rationale. In this action on the Arizona 
moderate PM10 SIP, EPA is proposing to apply its interpretations 
taking into consideration the specific factual issues presented. Thus, 
EPA will consider any timely submitted comments before taking final 
action on this proposal.
    Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following 
provisions by November 15, 1991:
    1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures 
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in 
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no 
later than December 10, 1993;
    2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the 
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that 
date is impracticable;
    3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
    4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator 
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to 
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections 
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
    Some provisions are due at a later date. States with initial 
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit 
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major 
stationary sources of PM10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). 
Such States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 
which become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon 
a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to 
attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See 
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544.

II. This Action

    Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's 
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this action, EPA 
is proposing to grant a limited approval/disapproval of the plan 
revision for Hayden/Miami because it contains some portions which 
strengthen the existing SIP but the revision does not wholly meet the 
applicable requirements of the Act. The most serious deficiency of the 
SIP revision is that it only addresses the Hayden portion of the 
nonattainment area. The Hayden/Miami nonattainment area consists of two 
distinct air basins which are separated by the Pinal and Mescal 
Mountain ranges. These two air basins are affected by different sources 
of PM10 and a separate control strategy is required for each 
basin. Therefore, while the submittal does not fully meet the specific 
provisions of part D, for example, a complete emission inventory that 
addresses the entire nonattainment area, a description of the 
monitoring network for the entire nonattainment area, and a 
demonstration of attainment that includes the Miami portion of the 
nonattainment area, it does contain some provisions which adequately 
address PM10 air quality in the Hayden portion of the 
nonattainment area. The operating permit issued to ASARCO, Inc., which 
is the primary vehicle for implementing the control strategy developed 
for the Hayden area, is an effective control of the largest sources of 
PM10 emissions in the Hayden area and advances the NAAQS-related 
air quality protection goals of the Act. Therefore, EPA proposes to 
grant a limited approval for the SIP revision because of its overall 
strengthening effect on Arizona's SIP, but is also proposing to 
disapprove the SIP revision because it does not address the Miami 
portion of the nonattainment area and because the SIP revision did not 
address the general requirements pertaining to establishing provisions 
for an air quality surveillance system.

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The EPA is proposing to grant a limited disapproval for the SIP 
submittal for not meeting the specific requirements of sections 
110(a)(2)(B), 172(c)(1), and 172(c)(3) of the Act. These deficiencies 
result from the SIP's failure to address the Miami portion of the 
nonattainment area and also the general monitoring requirements for the 
entire nonattainment area. Further discussion on these deficiencies is 
provided in the Technical Support Document contained in the docket.
1. Procedural Background
    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that 
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the 
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Also section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan 
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of 
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and 
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1) 
and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals 
are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 
42216 (August 26, 1991). The EPA attempts to make completeness 
determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a 
submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness 
determination is not made by EPA within six months after receipt of the 
submission.
    The State of Arizona held a public hearing on August 21, 1989 to 
entertain public comment on the implementation plan for Hayden, 
Arizona. Following the public hearing the plan was adopted by the State 
and signed by the Governor's designee on October 16, 1989, and 
submitted to EPA on October 16, 1989 as a proposed revision to the SIP. 
On February 3, 1992, Arizona submitted a new transmittal letter to EPA 
asking that EPA consider the October 16, 1989 submittal as meeting the 
November 15, 1991 PM10 SIP submittal due date. This transmittal 
letter included an attached justification for not implementing 
additional RACM in the Hayden SIP.
    The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness 
shortly after November 15, 1991, in accordance with the completeness 
criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 
FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). EPA determined that the submittal was 
complete, but did not make a formal finding of completeness. By 
operation of law the submittal was deemed complete as of May 15, 1992. 
As noted, in this action EPA proposes to partially approve Arizona's 
PM10 SIP submittal for Hayden/Miami and invites public comment on 
the action.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan 
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the 
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a 
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions 
in the area. Because the submission of such inventories are necessary 
to an area's attainment demonstration (or demonstration that the area 
cannot practicably attain), the emissions inventories must be received 
with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).
    Arizona submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1986. The 
base year inventory only identified sources in Hayden (the ASARCO 
smelter stack, copper ore tailings, ore crushing, the ASARCO slag dump, 
road dust, ASARCO smelter building fugitives, and copper ore). These 
are the primary sources of PM10 in the Hayden portion of the 
nonattainment area, contributing over 90 percent of the total emissions 
in Hayden during the time that the violations were recorded. Additional 
contributing sources included lime handling, gypsum handling, 
locomotive exhaust, automobile exhaust, and woodburning stoves.
    The EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory. While the 
emission inventory contains some inaccuracies with respect to certain 
point, area, and mobile source emissions, EPA feels that the inventory 
is accurate enough for determining the primary sources of PM10 in 
the Hayden area and the control strategy's effect on PM10 
emissions in the nonattainment area. Furthermore, EPA feels the 
inventory provides a sufficient basis for determining the adequacy of 
the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with the 
requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the Clean Air 
Act (ACT).\2\ For further details see the Technical Support Document 
(TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior 
to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the 
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. We believe that this document 
provides a general basis for meeting the requirements of the new 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACM (Including RACT)
    As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must 
submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are implemented 
no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and 
189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of 
EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 
FR 13539-13545 and 13560 13561).
    It should be noted that the SIP revision for the Hayden area was 
developed prior to the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 
Implementation of RACM was not a required portion of the SIP at that 
time. Arizona subsequently submitted an addendum to the SIP revision on 
February 3, 1992 which presented the justification for not implementing 
all of the RACM measures identified in Appendices C1, C2, and C3 of the 
General Preamble. The basic argument against implementation of further 
RACM was that the SIP demonstrated attainment of the PM10 NAAQS in 
1990, four years sooner than required by the Act, and that additional 
RACM would not cause the area to reach attainment any sooner. This is a 
valid argument in favor of not adopting further RACM. The control 
measures that are being implemented in the Hayden area are consistent 
with the guidance issued by EPA regarding fugitive dust in its General 
Preamble. Furthermore, the Hayden area has not experienced any 
violations of the PM10 NAAQS since 1990. The SIP submitted by 
Arizona for the Hayden nonattainment area used Chemical Mass Balance 
receptor modeling and dispersion modeling and then reconciled the 
results according to guidance provided by EPA in the document Protocol 
For Reconciling Differences Among Receptor And Dispersion Models, EPA, 
March 1987. As a result, five sources were identified as contributing 
to the PM10 nonattainment problem in Hayden and will be controlled 
with a variety of measures. Table 1 lists these measures and the 
associated emission reductions.

                                Table 1                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Emissions w/o     Emissions  
                                             controls     after controls
                                           (contribution   (contribution
   Source/source       Control measure       to 24 hr        to 24 hr   
     category                             ambient levels  ambient levels
                                          in g/  in g/
                                               m3)             m3)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ore Unloading,       Increased use of              410.8            39.6
 Crushing, and        spray bars,                                       
 Conveying.           hooding,                                          
                      enclosures, newer                                 
                      and more efficient                                
                      rotoclones, better                                
                      housekeeping.                                     
Unpaved Roads......  Capping, watering,             86.5             8.7
                      use of dust                                       
                      suppressants.                                     
Locomotives........  Implementation of              58.8            23.5
                      40% opacity limit.                                
Paved Roads........  No controls to be              29.9            29.9
                      implemented.                                      
Gypsum Handling....  Source permanently             10.2            0.0 
                      shut down.                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control measures in Table 1 have been implemented and therefore 
meet the requirement of implementing RACM by December 10, 1993. 
According to the SIP, control of these sources will result in an 
estimated emission reduction of 292 tons per year of PM10. A more 
detailed discussion of the individual source contributions, their 
associated control measures (including available control technology) 
and an explanation as to why certain available control measures were 
not implemented, can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD).
    The EPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated 
documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control 
measures to be implemented. There are a limited and obvious number of 
PM10 sources in the Hayden area and the State addresses each of 
them in the SIP revision. The implementation of Arizona's part D 
particulate matter nonattainment plan control strategy will result in 
the attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. By this 
document EPA is proposing to approve the RACM, including RACT, 
developed by Arizona for the Hayden area's control strategy. EPA is 
proposing to approve the operating permit issued to ASARCO, Inc., the 
measure restricting off road vehicle use, the measure for locomotive 
emissions and the measure for gypsum handling.
4. Demonstration
    As noted, the CAA requires that initial moderate PM10 
nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration (including air quality 
modeling) showing that the plan will provide for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 (See 
section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show 
that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. The SIP 
submitted by Arizona for Hayden contains an attainment demonstration 
using Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) Receptor Modeling reconciled with the 
Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST) Dispersion Model. This 
demonstration indicates that the NAAQS for PM10 will be attained 
by 1990 in Hayden and maintained in future years. The 24-hour PM10 
NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and the 
standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year 
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is 
equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM10 NAAQS 
is 50 g/m3, and the standard is attained when the 
expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to 
50 g/m3. The demonstration predicted that the 24-hour 
design concentration in the attainment year of 1990 will be 129 
g/m3, thus demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS. The annual design concentration of 31.6 g/
m3 predicted for the same year demonstrates attainment of the 
annual PM10 NAAQS. The demonstration also showed that the 
PM10 NAAQS will be maintained in future years by predicting a 24-
hour design concentration of 147.1 g/m3, and an annual 
design concentration of 34.2 g/m3 for the year 1997. The 
control strategy used to achieve these design concentrations is 
summarized in the section titled ``RACM (including RACT)''.
    The State's demonstration of attainment of the 24 hour NAAQS in the 
Hayden area is approved as is the SIP's demonstration of attainment of 
the annual PM10 NAAQS in the Hayden area. For a more detailed 
description of the attainment demonstration and the control strategy 
used, see the Technical Support Document.
5. PM10 Precursors
    The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary 
sources of PM10, also apply to major stationary sources of 
PM10 precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not 
contribute significantly to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in 
that area (see section 189(e) of the Act).
    An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Hayden 
portion of the nonattainment area indicates that exceedances of the 
NAAQS are attributable chiefly to direct particulate matter emissions 
from copper ore unloading, crushing and conveying activities, unpaved 
roads, locomotives, and gypsum handling. Sources of particulate matter 
precursor emissions of SO2 contribute anywhere from 3 g/
m3 to 5 g/m3 to the 24 hr design concentration. 
Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that major sources of precursors 
of PM10 do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels in 
excess of the NAAQS. The consequences of this finding are that the 
PM10 nonattainment area control requirements will not apply to the 
sources of PM10 precursors. Further discussion of the analyses and 
supporting rationale for EPA's finding are contained in the Technical 
Support Document. Note that while EPA is making a general finding for 
this area, today's finding is based on the current character of the 
area including, for example, the existing mix of sources in the area. 
It is possible, therefore, that future growth could change the 
significance of precursors in the area. The EPA intends to issue future 
guidance addressing such potential changes in the significance of 
precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
    The PM10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating 
attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be 
achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and 
which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment 
by December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable 
further progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual 
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 
are required by part D or may reasonably be required by the 
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable 
NAAQS by the applicable date.
    In determining RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed 
the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area and 
assessed whether annual incremental reductions different from those 
provided in the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of 
the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). Since 
Arizona has not recorded a violation of the PM10 NAAQS in the 
Hayden since 1990, EPA feels that the State of Arizona has satisfied 
the RFP requirement for the Hayden portion of the nonattainment area.
7. Enforceability Issues
    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the State and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's and SIP 
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with 
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions 
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the 
control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section 
110(a)(2)(C)).
    The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed 
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control 
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that 
discussion, including, for example, copper ore unloading, crushing and 
conveying, dust from unpaved roads, locomotive exhaust, gypsum 
handling, and off-road vehicle use. The SIP provides that the affected 
activities are subject to the applicable control measures.
    Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, the 
SIP requires that all affected activities must be in full compliance 
with the applicable SIP provisions by December 31, 1991. In addition to 
the applicable control measures, this includes the applicable record-
keeping requirements which are addressed in the supporting technical 
information. In addition, the SIP sets out a compliance schedule for 
the ASARCO smelting facility that includes enforceable deadlines by 
which the source must implement the appropriate control measures. The 
compliance schedule is described in more detail in the supporting 
technical information. Compliance for certain measures, such as the 
limitation of process emissions from the crushing facility and the 
control of emissions from unpaved roads must be determined in 
accordance with appropriate test methods. The SIP provides that 
compliance with the operating permit process emission conditions 
applicable to the ASARCO facility will be determined in accordance with 
EPA approved test methods as contained in the Arizona Testing Manual. 
For the control of unpaved road emissions compliance will be determined 
based on test methods contained in the EPA document Control of Open 
Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-450/3-88-008). The EPA believes these test 
methods are appropriate for determining compliance.
    The attached Technical Support Document (TSD) contains further 
information on enforceability requirements including: enforceable 
emission limitations; a description of the rules contained in the SIP 
and the source types subject to them; and reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
    The State of Arizona has given the State Department of 
Environmental Quality the necessary legal authority to ensure that the 
measures contained in the SIP are adequately enforced.
8. Contingency Measures
    As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate 
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include 
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures 
must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial moderate 
nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other 
available measures that are not part of the area's control strategy. 
These measures must take effect without further action by the State or 
EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP 
or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline.
    However, as noted the States are not required to submit the 
contingency plan in section 172(c)(9), until November 15, 1993 (see 57 
FR 13543 (April 16, 1992)). Consequently, Arizona will have until 
November 15, 1993 to submit a contingency plan.

III. Implications of This Action

    The EPA is proposing to grant a limited approval/disapproval for 
the SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona on October 16, 1989 
for the Hayden/Miami moderate PM10 nonattainment area. If 
finalized, this disapproval would constitute a disapproval under 
section 179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR 13566-13567). As 
provided under section 179(a) of the Act, the State of Arizona would 
have up to 18 months after a final SIP disapproval to correct the 
deficiencies that are the subject of the disapproval before EPA is 
required to impose either the highway funding sanction or the 
requirement to provide two-to-one new source review offsets. If the 
State has not corrected its deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA 
must impose the second sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain 
in place until EPA determines that the State has come into compliance. 
If EPA ultimately disapproves all or part of the SIP submittal for the 
Hayden/Miami nonattainment area and the State of Arizona fails to 
correct the deficiency within 18 months of such disapprovals, EPA 
anticipates that the first sanction it would impose would be the two to 
one offset requirement. Note also that any final disapproval would 
trigger the requirement for EPA to impose a Federal implementation plan 
as provided under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.

IV. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of today's proposal 
including EPA's proposed decision to impose the two to one new source 
review offset requirement as the first sanction should EPA ultimately 
disapprove this submittal in whole or in part and the State fail to 
timely remedy the deficiency. EPA is particularly interested in 
comments addressing the adequacy of the State's modeling and the 
accuracy of the State's emissions inventory. As indicated at the outset 
of this document, EPA will consider any comments received by August 15, 
1994.

V. Executive Order (EO) 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not ``significant''. It 
has not been submitted to OMB for review in accordance with section 6 
of E.O 12866.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility

    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 economic 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 sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D 
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on 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).

    The disapproval action taken against Arizona's SIP submittal for 
not addressing the Miami portion of the nonattainment area affects only 
one source, Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. Cyprus Miami Mining Corp. is not 
a small entity. Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action 
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: April 15, 1994.

Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-17300 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P