[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 97 (Friday, May 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29239-29243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10148]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R10-OAR-2005-0004; FRL-7915-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposal to approve 
revisions to the State of Washington Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 
submitted a request to EPA dated March 1, 2004 to revise the Washington 
SIP to include revisions to WAC Ch. 173-434, Solid Waste Incinerator 
Facilities. The revisions were submitted in accordance with the 
requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act). 
EPA proposes to approve the revisions to WAC Ch. 173-434 as part of the 
SIP, with the exception of a couple of submitted rule provisions which 
are inappropriate for EPA approval because they are unrelated to the 
purposes of the implementation plan.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R10-OAR-
2005-0004, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's 
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
    3. E-mail: [email protected].
    4. Mail: Roylene A. Cunningham, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    5. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Roylene A. Cunningham, 
Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). Such deliveries are only 
accepted during EPA's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. R10-OAR-2005-
0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal http://www.regulations.gov Web site are an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information may not be publicly available, such as CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
EDOCKET or in hard copy at EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, from 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Please 
contact the individual listed in the ``For Further Information 
Contact'' section to schedule your inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roylene A. Cunningham, EPA, Office of 
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-
0513, or e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background of Submittal
II. Requested Sections to be Incorporated by Reference into the SIP
    A. Description of Submittal
    B. Key Changes to WAC Ch. 173-434
    C. Air Quality Impact of Ecology's Changes
    D. Summary of Action
    1. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference
    2. Provisions not Approved by EPA
III. Requested Sections to be Removed from the SIP
    A. Description of Submittal
    B. Summary of Action
IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background of Submittal

    On March 1, 2004, the Director of Ecology submitted a request to 
EPA to revise the Washington SIP to include

[[Page 29240]]

revisions to WAC Ch. 173-434, Solid Waste Incinerator Facilities. These 
changes became effective as a matter of State law on January 22, 2004. 
EPA last approved WAC Ch. 173-434 into the SIP on January 15, 1993 [58 
FR 4578].

II. Requested Sections To Be Incorporated by Reference Into the SIP

A. Description of Submittal

    Ecology has revised the requirements of WAC Ch. 173-434 by making 
minor changes to the existing requirements for solid waste incineration 
facilities and adding two new, narrow exemptions to existing 
requirements for the burning of creosote treated wood and the burning 
of certain materials at cement plant kilns. Revised WAC Ch. 173-434 
refers to this set of rules and changes as the ``primary compliance 
scheme.'' The requirements of the primary compliance scheme are 
contained WAC 173-434-090, -130, -160, -170, -190, and -200.
    At the same time, Ecology has revised WAC Ch. 173-434 to impose 
more stringent requirements on newly constructed and newly modified 
solid waste incineration facilities by making such facilities subject 
to the more stringent requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb if 
they burn 12 tons per day of solid waste (as opposed to 250 tons per 
day as provided in subpart Eb). The revisions also allow an existing 
solid waste incineration facility to ``opt in'' to the more stringent 
provisions of subpart Eb in lieu of the ``primary compliance scheme.'' 
Revised WAC Ch. 173-434 refers to the provisions applying the 
requirements of subpart Eb to new or modified facilities and facilities 
that opt in as an ``an alternative compliance scheme.'' The 
requirements of the alternative compliance scheme are contained in the 
new subsection WAC 173-434-110 and WAC 173-434-130(4)(c).
    Ecology has determined that, prior to the 2004 revisions to WAC Ch. 
173-434, there were five facilities subject to the requirements of that 
chapter (although several of the sources disputed that WAC Ch. 173-434 
applied to them). Ecology's submittal includes a demonstration of the 
effect of these changes on those five sources. Ecology's demonstration 
shows that the revisions as applied to these five existing sources are 
not less stringent than the version of WAC Ch. 173-434 that is 
currently approved into the SIP, or that, to the extent the revisions 
are less stringent, the revisions do not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or 
any other requirement of the Act, as required by section 110(l) of the 
Act.

B. Key Changes to WAC Ch. 173-434

    The docket includes a technical support document which describes in 
more detail the substantive changes to Ecology's rules that have been 
submitted by Washington as revisions to the SIP, EPA's evaluation of 
the changes, and the basis for EPA's action. A summary of key changes 
to Ecology's rules and EPA's proposed action follows:
Definition of Solid Waste
    Subsection (3) of the definition of ``solid waste'' has been 
revised to, among other things, clarify that Ecology's definition of 
solid waste includes all materials included in EPA's definitions of 
``municipal solid waste'' (MSW) in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cb, Ea, Eb, 
AAAA, and BBBB, and ``commercial and industrial solid waste'' (CISW) in 
40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD), except for the four categories 
of waste that are specifically excluded from Ecology's definition even 
if they are considered MSW or CISW under EPA's definitions. Two of 
these exceptions, wood waste and sludge from waste water treatment 
plants, were previously excluded from Ecology's definition of solid 
waste. Two of these exceptions are new. First, WAC 173-434-030(3)(a) 
now excludes certain creosote-treated wood from the definition of 
``solid waste.'' This new exception is intended to prevent creosote-
treated wood from being included in the amount of solid waste that 
would trigger applicability of WAC Ch. 173-434, provided the facility 
obtains an order of approval or Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permit issued on or after December 1, 2003, that authorizes the 
burning of such wood. Second, WAC 173-434-030(3)(b) also now excludes 
from the definition of ``solid waste'' tires or nonhazardous waste oil 
burned in cement plant kilns. The potential impact on air quality of 
these two new exceptions to the definition of solid waste with respect 
to existing sources is discussed below.
WAC 173-434-110, Standards of Performance
    Ecology has revised this section in its entirety. First, Ecology 
repealed the previous language stating that all WAC Ch. 173-434 sources 
must comply with ``any applicable provisions of WAC 173-400-115,'' 
which incorporates by reference EPA's New Source Performance Standards, 
40 CFR part 60. This is already required by WAC 173-400-115, which 
incorporates by reference as a matter of State law the New Source 
Performance Standards, 40 CFR part 60, including subpart Eb. Therefore, 
deleting the original language of subsection (1) does not change any 
existing requirements. Ecology has made clear in its submittal that it 
did not intend in any way, through the recent amendments to WAC Ch. 
173-434, to trump or supersede the direct applicability of subpart Eb 
through WAC 173-400-115.
    In lieu of the previous language in subsection (1), Ecology has 
made the emission control and other requirements of subpart Eb 
applicable to new and modified sources in Washington that burn more 
than 12 tons per day of solid waste, rather than only those that burn 
more than 250 tons per day of solid waste, as provided in subpart Eb 
itself. WAC 173-434-110(1)(a) and (b) incorporate subpart Eb by 
reference. This is done in two separate subsections to distinguish 
between those parts of subpart Eb that relate to criteria pollutants 
and are appropriate for inclusion in the SIP under section 110 of the 
Act and those parts of subpart Eb that relate to noncriteria pollutants 
and thus are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP under section 110 
of the Act.
    Revised WAC 173-434-110(2) identifies the exceptions to 
Washington's incorporation by reference of subpart Eb as applied to 
sources subject to WAC Ch. 173-434. Most importantly, subsection (2)(a) 
contains the expanded applicability criteria, reducing the 250 tons/day 
threshold in subpart Eb downward to 12 tons per day, the current 
threshold in WAC Ch. 173-434. As discussed above, the terms ``municipal 
solid waste,'' ``municipal type solid waste,'' and ``MSW'' in subpart 
Eb are adjusted to include all materials that fit the definition of 
solid waste in chapter 434. Subsection (2)(c) eliminates the exception 
for 30% municipal solid waste co-fire in 40 CFR 60.50b(j). Thus, new 
and modified facilities that would be exempt from subpart Eb as 
provided in 40 CFR 60.50b(j) will be subject to the substantive 
requirements of subpart Eb. Finally, in subsection (2)(d) and (4), 
Ecology has changed the applicability dates in subpart Eb so that those 
sources that will be subject to the substantive requirements of subpart 
Eb by virtue of these amendments to WAC Ch. 173-434 will have time to 
transition to the new requirements. Again, the changes in the 
applicability dates in no way changes the applicability dates for 
sources that are subject to subpart Eb by its terms or as provided in 
WAC 173-400-115.

[[Page 29241]]

    In subsection 3(a), Ecology has provided that, except for WAC 173-
434-130(4)(c), WAC 173-434-090, -130, -160, -170, -190, and -200 do not 
apply to an incinerator facility that becomes subject to the federal 
rule in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb through WAC 173-434-110 (i.e., the 
alternate compliance scheme). Subsection(3)(b) contains an ``opt in'' 
provision that would allow a facility to choose to be subject to the 
alternative compliance scheme (subpart Eb as modified by WAC 173-434-
110) rather than subject to most of the remaining requirements of 
chapter 434. In other words, even if existing facilities (such as 
Spokane Waste to Energy Plant or Tacoma Steam Plant) do not become 
subject to the expanded applicability of subpart Eb, as provided in 
revised WAC 173-434-110 (i.e., construct/reconstruct/modify after such 
applicable date), they can ``opt in'' to the alternative compliance 
scheme as provided in WAC 173-434-110(3)(b).

C. Air Quality Impact of Ecology's Changes

    Section 110(l) of the Act states that EPA shall not approve a 
revision to the SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or 
with any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act. Ecology's 
submission shows that, with respect to new and modified sources, the 
revised rule is a strengthening of the existing SIP requirements. These 
amendments prospectively strengthen controls for incinerators from 
existing WAC Ch. 173-434 to those of the EPA's more stringent waste 
incinerator rules at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Eb.
    Ecology's submission also includes a demonstration regarding the 
impact of the changes on emissions from sources currently subject to 
WAC Ch. 173-434. Ecology is aware of five facilities that it believes 
were subject to WAC Ch. 173-434 before the changes. In each case, 
Ecology has demonstrated that the revisions are at least as stringent 
as the version of WAC Ch. 173-434 currently approved as part of the SIP 
or that the revision will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS 
and reasonable further progress or any other requirement of the Act.
Spokane Incinerator
    The Spokane Incinerator has been operating as an electric utility 
steam generating unit subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cb, which is 
less stringent than subpart Eb. The Spokane Incinerator has also been 
subject to WAC Ch. 173-434 and will continue to be subject. None of the 
recently adopted exemptions to the definition of solid waste would 
change the applicability of WAC Ch. 173-434 to the Spokane Incinerator, 
nor have the applicable emission limits changed. The Spokane 
Incinerator would be subject to the more stringent provisions of WAC 
173-434-110 (which largely incorporates subpart Eb) if it ``opts in'' 
to these provisions in lieu of the substantive requirements of WAC 173-
434-090, -130, -160, -170, -190, and -200.
Tacoma Steam Plant
    The Tacoma Steam Plant (TSP) has been operating as an electric 
utility steam generating unit subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da. In 
2002, the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board determined that 
TSP was subject to WAC Ch. 173-434. The inherent nature of the TSP 
combustion chambers rendered it physically impossible for TSP to burn 
MSW in compliance with the time and temperature requirements of WAC 
173-400-160 while also meeting the emission limits. TSP therefore 
ceased burning MSW. With the revisions to WAC Ch. 173-434, TSP has the 
option of continuing to burn MSW by ``opting in'' to the more stringent 
provisions of WAC 173-434-110 (which largely incorporate subpart Eb) in 
lieu of the substantive requirements of WAC 173-434-090, -130, -160, -
170, -190, and -200. None of the recently adopted exemptions to the 
definition of solid waste would change the applicability of WAC Ch. 
173-434 to TSP. If TSP elects to resume combusting MSW, it will be 
subject to more stringent emission limits than under the current SIP.
Kimberly-Clark
    Kimberly-Clark was subject to the terms of the previous version of 
WAC Ch. 173-434, but has been operating under a variance issued by 
Ecology, which allowed it to burn more than 12 tons per day of 
creosote-treated wood without meeting the requirements of WAC Ch. 1173-
434. The variance was not submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP 
revision. The recently adopted exemption to the definition of solid 
waste for creosote-treated wood was intended to allow Kimberly-Clark to 
burn more than 12 tons per day of creosote-treated wood without being 
subject to the emission limits in WAC Ch. 173-434. As such the 
creosote-treated wood exemption narrows the scope of WAC Ch. 173-434 
and could allow an increase in emissions from Kimberly-Clark as 
compared to the requirements of the existing SIP (although Kimberly-
Clark would not be emitting more than it is emitting under the 
variance, which is not in the SIP). Ecology has submitted source test 
data from Kimberly-Clark showing that burning creosote-treated wood at 
Kimberly-Clark did not significantly increase emissions. In addition, 
in order for the burning of creosote-treated wood to be exempt from WAC 
Ch. 173-434, Kimberly-Clark must apply for and obtain an order of 
approval or a PSD permit (whichever, is applicable) allowing it to burn 
creosote-treated wood. In issuing the order of approval/PSD permit, 
Ecology will be required to determine the amount of creosote-treated 
wood that the company can burn and still assure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS and PSD increments and include a limit at such 
amount. Therefore, to the extent the exemption for creosote-treated 
wood does allow an increase in emissions over the current SIP, Ecology 
has demonstrated that the SIP revision meets the requirements of 
section 110(l) of the Act.
Ashgrove Cement Company and Lafarge North America, Inc.
    Ecology has maintained that Ashgrove Cement Company and Lafarge 
North America, Inc. were subject to the original version of WAC Ch. 
173-434, although the companies questioned the applicability of WAC Ch. 
173-434 to their industry. WAC Ch. 173-434 was not identified as a 
requirement in the existing permits for these companies. The revisions 
to WAC Ch. 173-434 specifically exempt from the definition of solid 
waste the combustion of tires and nonhazardous waste oil at cement 
plant kilns, thus clarifying the applicability of WAC Ch. 173-434 to 
these facilities by specifically exempting these facilities as they 
currently operate. Only if these facilities expand the substances they 
incinerate to include more than 12 tons per day of ``solid waste'' 
would these facilities be subject to WAC Ch. 173-434. To the extent 
that these companies were subject to WAC Ch. 173-434 prior to the 
adoption of the exemption for the combustion of certain waste in cement 
kilns, the recent amendments to this chapter constitute a relaxation. 
Ecology has included in its SIP submittal a demonstration, consistent 
with the requirements of section 110(l), showing that exempting these 
facilities from WAC Ch. 173-434 will not have a deleterious effect on 
any NAAQS, PSD increment or visibility in Class I areas and will not 
interfere with any other Act requirements.

[[Page 29242]]

D. Summary of Action

1. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference
    EPA has determined that the following sections are consistent with 
the requirements of title I of the Act and is proposing to approve them 
as part of the SIP and incorporate them by reference into Federal law:
    WAC 173-434-020, Applicability and Compliance; -030, Definitions; -
110, Standards of Performance [except (1)(a)]; -130, Emission Standards 
[except (2)]; -160, Design and Operation; -170, Monitoring and 
Reporting; -190, Changes in Operation; and -200, Emission Inventory, 
State effective January 22, 2004.
2. Provisions Not Approved by EPA
    EPA is proposing not to approve certain provisions, which EPA 
believes are inconsistent with the requirements of the Act or not 
appropriate for inclusion in a SIP under section 110 of the Act.
    WAC 173-434-110(1)(a), Standards of Performance. This subsection 
contains emission standards for cadmium, mercury, hydrogen chloride, 
and dioxin/furans. These types of provisions are inappropriate for SIP 
approval because they are not related to the criteria pollutants 
regulated under section 110 of the Act.
    WAC 173-434-130(2), Emission Standards. This section contains 
emission standards for hydrogen chloride. These types of provisions are 
inappropriate for SIP approval because they are not related to the 
criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the Act.

III. Requested Sections To Be Removed From the SIP

A. Description of Submittal

    Ecology has requested that EPA remove certain provisions from the 
SIP because they have been previously repealed by the State.
    WAC 173-434-050, New Source Review (NSR); -070, Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD); and -100, Requirement of BACT, State 
effective October 18, 1990.

B. Summary of Action

    EPA proposes to take the following action on the provisions which 
Ecology has requested be removed from the SIP.
WAC 173-434-050, New Source Review (NSR) (State Effective October 18, 
1990)
    This section is being repealed. It stated that WAC 173-400-110, 
Ecology's new source review rule, applies to each new source or 
emissions unit subject to WAC Ch. 173-434. Sources subject to WAC Ch. 
173-434 are subject to WAC 173-400-110 even without this provision. 
Therefore, deleting this section does not change any requirements of 
the SIP.
WAC 173-434-070, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (State 
Effective October 18, 1990)
    This section is being repealed. It stated that WAC 173-400-141, 
Ecology's PSD rule, applies to each new source or emissions unit 
subject to WAC Ch. 173-434. Sources subject to WAC Ch. 173-434 are 
subject to Ecology's PSD rule (now codified at WAC 173-400-700 through 
750) even without this provision. Therefore, deleting this section does 
not change any requirements of the SIP.
WAC 173-434-100, Requirement of BACT (State Effective October 18, 1990)
    This section is being repealed. It stated that all sources required 
to file a notice of construction application are required to use Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT). This is already required by WAC 
173-400-112(2)(b) and 113(2). Therefore, deleting this section does not 
change any requirements of the SIP.

IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval

    This SIP approval does not extend to sources or activities located 
in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Consistent with 
previous Federal program approvals or delegations, EPA will continue to 
implement the Act in Indian Country in Washington because PS Clean Air 
did not adequately demonstrate authority over sources and activities 
located within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations and other 
areas of Indian Country. The one exception is within the exterior 
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 
1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided State and local 
agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands 
within the 1873 Survey Area. Therefore, EPA's SIP approval applies to 
sources and activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because 
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not 
have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal 
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National

[[Page 29243]]

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do 
not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 11, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05-10148 Filed 5-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P