+(,121/,1(

Citation: 39 Fed. Reg. 42509 1974 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Wed Oct 21 15:13:30 2015

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Volume 39 N Number 235

PART !111 934

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

AIR QUALITY

IMPLEMENTATION

PLANS

Prevention oF Significant Air

Quality Deterioration
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 40-Protection of Environment

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

SUBCHAPTER C-AIR PROGRAMS

[FRL 302-4] _

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Prevention of Significant Air Quality

Deterioration

On May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10842), the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency published initial alpprovals and disapprovals of State Implemen- tation Plans submitted pursuant to sec- tion 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended

in 1970.

On November 9, 1972 (37 FR 23836),

all State Implementation Plans were disapproved insofar as they failed to

provide for the prevention of significant

deterioratioi of existing air quality. This

action was taken in response to a pre- liminary injunction issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia,

which also required the administrator to

promulgate regulations as to any. state

plan which either permits the significant deterioration of air quality in any portion of any state, or fails to take the measures necessary to prevent such significant deterioration.

Accordingly, on July 16, 1973 (38 FR

18986), an initial notice of proposed

rulemaking was published which set

forth four alternative plans for prevent- ing significant deterioration, and which

solicited widespread public involvement

in all aspects of the significant deterioration issue. A series of public hearings were held and over 300 written comments were submitted in response to this pro- posal. The hearing records and the written comments are available for inspection at the EPA Freedom of Information

Office, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

Due to the lack of precise direction

either in the Clean Air Act or in the

Court order, the initial proposals focused on the conceptual basis for regulations. The comments received on the proposed regulations therefore tended primarily to

discuss conceptual issues such as the roles

of federal and state/local governments, rather than detailed comments regarding implementation of the regulations. Accordingly, on August 27, 1974 (39 FR

31000), the Administrator issued reproposed regulations in order to properly ex- plore all aspects of.this issue and to focus more clearly on procedural and technical

issues.

The Administration has submitted for

consideration an amendment to the Act

which would eliminate the requirement for preventing significant deterioration

of air quality. This amendment is pend- ing before the Congress. Although EPA

does not endorse this amendment, EPA

seeks full public debate on the significant deterioration issue and in issuing these

reglations does not intend to delay or influence consideration of this amendment. The regulations issued herein are necessary because the Court has ruled

that the current Clean Air Act requires

the Administrator to prevent signflcant deterioration, and this requirement must

be met even though it is possible that

Congress may provide additional guid- ance and/or legislative changes in the

future.

The regulations proposed on August 27,

1974, called for the establishment of

"classes" of different allowable incremental increases in total suspended particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (SO,). Class I applied to areas in which prac- tically any change in air quality would

be considered significant; Class I applied

to areas in which deterioration normally accompanying moderate well-controlled

growth would be considered insignificant;

and Class 3-Iapplied to those areas in

which deterioration up to the national

standards would be considered insignificant. Under the proposed regulation, all areas of the country would be designated Class II initially, with provisions for allowing States to reclassify any area to

accommodate the social, economic, and

environmental needs and desires of the

public.

The plan would be implemented through a preconstruction review of

specified source categories to determine

whether these sources would cause a violation of the appropriate increments.

The new source review also included a provision requiring the use of best available control technology on sources cov- ered by the regulation. Finally, the pro- posal provided procedures for public com- ment on each application for permission

to construct- and for delegating the re- sponsibility for implementing the new source review procedures to States or local governmental units.

DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC CO!=NTS

The August 27 proposal was criticized

by environmental groups as being unre- sponsive to the District Court's order in

that it permits the deterioration of air

quality up to the national standards in

Class MI regions. Although this result

could also occur in Class I or Class f1

regions where the difference between

existing air quality and the national

standard is less than the prescribed air

quality increment, all such comments

focused on the provision for Class II areas. Unless "significant deterioration"

is defined as a percentage of the "unused" air resource, any air quality increment plan, regardless of how small

the increment is, could allow deterioration up to the national standard in some instances. As discussed in the preamble

to the proposals of July 16, 1973, and

August 27, 1974, air quality monitoring

is presently concentrated in heavily pol- luted areas, with only scattered monitoring in relatively clean areas. Vast

numbers of additional monitors will be

necessary to precisely define existing air

quality, making a plan that is dependent on a knowledge of existing air quality virtually unworkable. Therefore, the fact

that air quality could, in some instances,

increase to the national standard, does

not, in the Administrator's opinion,

make the August 27 proposal inconsistent with the Court's ruling.

Additional comments involving Class

III areas indicated that economic and

social factors should have no bearing on the definition of significant deterioration. These comments stated that EPA

must consider only air quality factors

and that a single nationwide definition

of significant deterioration must be

established. Such comments did not take

issue with Agency statements made on July 16, 1973, and August 27, 1074 that

the definition of significant deterioration Is basically a subjective decision.

None of the comments suggesting

changes to the increments proposed by the Administrator, or proposing alternate plans, offered any justification for

the numbers which were selected. Since

the consideration of "air quality factors" alone essentially leads to an arbitrary definition of what Is "significant," this term only has meaning when the

economic and social imnplications are analyzed and considered. Therefore, the

Administrator believes that it is most

important to recognize and consider

these Implications, since the consideration of air quality factors alone provides no basis for selecting one deterioration

Increment over another.

Even In the subjective terms that arc required when considering only the en- vironmental aspects, the contention that

there must be a single definition of sig- nificant deterioration applicable nationwide does not appear to address the wide

range of environmental needs which

exist. Most of the comments Implicitly recognized that there Is a need to develop resources In presently clean areas of the country, and that significant deterioration regulations should not pre- clude all growth, but should ensure that

growth occurs In an environmentally

acceptable manner. However, there are some areas, such as national parks, ,where any deterioration would probably be viewed as significant. A single nationwide deterioration increment would not

be able to accommodate these two situations.

Along these lines, comments were spe- cifically requested in the proposal as to

whether the Class 11 increment should

be doubled. Power companies generally supported such a change, while other

comments from the industrial sector Indicated that the increments were adequate for well-controlled growth. Power

companies indicated that many now plants would be much larger than those

which would be allowed in a Class IX area (approximately 1000 megawatts), and that the Class I increment ought

to accommodate such development. None

of the comments presented any reasons for permitting such development In a Class I rather than a Class In area, ex- cept that the initial designation of all

areas will be Class Ir. The Administrator continues to feel that a Class IX increment should be compatible with moderate, well-controlled development In a

nationwide context,.and that large-scale

development should be permitted only in

conjunction .with a conscious decision

to redesignate the area as Class I,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

42510
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Many comments also criticized tle

omission of carbon monoxide (CO),

nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and photochemical oxidants

(Ox) from the regulations. As indicated on July 16, 1973, and August 27, 1974, and in previous actions

involving indirect-source review (38 FR

29893 at '29894, 39 FR 7270 at 7272, and

39 FR 25292 at 25295), existing ana- lytical procedures are not adequate to

determine the impact of individual sources on air quality concentrations of

reactive pollutants (NOx and HC/Ox).

The only presently available technique for relating emissions to air quality for

these pollutants is the areawide propor- tional model used for demonstrating the

adequacy of control strategies. The proportional model requires that measured

air quality data be available; however, as indicated above, such data are very

limited in presently clean areas (even more so than for TSP and SO). In con- trast, the air quality concentration of

stable pollutants can reasonably be estimated using a diffusion model- and

therefore measured air quality data are not necessary, to determine the incremental air quality impact of an individual source. In addition, since the proportional model assumes that air quality is proportional to emissions, the key to

analyzing the impact of an individual source focuses on the definition of baseline emissions. If the source would be

located in a very clean area with virtually no baseline emissions, then the

predicted air quality incFease would be

very large (when in fact it probably

would not). If the source would be located in a large metropolitan area and

the baseline emissions are those of the

entire metropolitan area, then the pre-

-dicted impact of a single additional source would be very small. Therefore,

the proportional model is adequate for

control strategy development in urban areas where measured air quality data are available and the aggregate impact of controlling many sources is being

analyzed. However, it is inappropriate for analyzing the incremental impact of

individual new soukees.

At this time, the only practical ap- proach for dealing with these pollutants

appears to be to minimi emissions as much as possible. The Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program accomplishes this

for individual motor vehicles. New source performance standards (NSPS) have already -been established under Part 60 of

this chapter for many of the source categories subject to the regulation. Where

practicable, emission limitations for CO,

NOx, and HC have been promulgated for those sources presently subject to

Part 60. Although some of the source categories are not yet included in Part

60, either" (1) those that are not covered are not significant emitters of CO, NOx, or HC, or (2) control technology for

these pollutants is unavailable or an emission limitation is impractical (e.g.

HC emissions from coke ovens).

One additional step which could be

taken to minimize emission of CO, NOx,

and HC appears to be in the area of

minimizing vehicle mlles' of travel

(VMT). Plans for reducing VMT and

minimizing future V"T growth have

been developed as part of the Transpor- tation Control Plans (TCP) promul- gated elsewhere in this chapter. Since

the TCP's focus on major metropolitan

areas, the flexibility available in design- ing these plans would be more limited

when applied to rural and outlying areas. It is clear, however, that comprehensive transportation planning offers an appropirate mechanism for minimizing

VMT growth in such areas. It Is not clear,

however, how EPA might become involved in comprehensive transportation planning throughout the country under

these regulations, although States may

wish to consider such an approach when

developing their own plans to prevent significant deterioration. States of

course, are not precluded from including other more comprehensive measures for

dealing with HC, CO, and NOx in their own plans. Some difflcult additional questions

arise as to how this concept of VMT

minimization could be incorporated into

these significant deterioration regulations. Would the addition of a VT

increment, similar to the air quality Increment approach used in these reglations, be appropriate? Would a new source review of specific indirect sources be practical, or should the review apply

to larger scale projects such as a new town or a large new development? The

Administrator solicits additional com- ments on this issue and may modify the

regulation at a later date if workable

procedures in this area can be developed. The August 27 proposal specified that

all areas of the country, including those areas above the national standards,

would be subject to the significant deterioration regulations, even though the

District Court order only required' the

prevention of significant deterioration in areas presently below the national standards. This was done because it was not

possible to specify in these regulations

all areas of the country which exceed

the national ambient air quality standards. In addition, there would be no prac- tical impact of these significant deterioration regulations in areas above the

standards, since emissions in such areas are being reduced under the state implementation plans, while these regulations provide for limited allowable In- creases in emissions.

Nonetheless, there were a number of

comments requesting that these regula- tions specifically exempt all areas pres- ently above the national standards. The

regulations promulgated below provide

for this exemption only with respect to

the area classification requirements. The

preconstruction review is still applicable

in all areas of the country, in order to ensure that new sources be examined for

their impact in presently clean areas

which may be adjacent to areas that are

above the national standards. In addition, the requirements for applying best

available control technology are also applicable to all sources subject to review

in order to minimize the deterioration

caused by individual sources. This requirement is particularly important where a source in one State would use

up a significant portion of the-air quality

increment in a neighboring State.

The exemption of areas from the classiflcation requirements will be done on a county basis (or functionally equivalent

area) and will be based on a determination by the State that the air quality In

the county is pervasively above the na- tional standard. No attempt has been

made to define these counties in these

regulations. Instead, States must notify

the Administrator by June 1, 1975, of

those areas which are exempt from the

classification requirements.

There were a number of comments re- questing clarification of the relationship

of these regulations to other portions of

the existing implementation plans, particularly the air quality maintenance

plans (AQMP's) to be submitted by June, 1975. An air quality maintenance area CAQ,A) is an area designated by

the Administrator that may have the

potential for exceeding any national

standard within the next 10-year period as a consequence of current air quality

and/or the projected growth rate of the area. The State are required to submit an analysis of the impact on air quality

of projected growth in each designated

potential problem area. Where mainte- nance problems are Identified by this

analysis, the states must also submit

plans containing measures to ensure maintenance of national standards during the ensuing 10-year period. AQMA's

have been proposed for specific pollutants

and final designations will be published shortly. Where an AQUA has been designated because of projected problems in

maintaining the NAAQS for either TSP or SO,, the significant deterioration increment is applicable only to those portions of the AQUA which are cleaner

than either standard. By design AQUA

boundaries have been designated to Include substantial areas which are relatively clean. This has been done to In- sure that the planning area corresponds

to the entire area where projected new growth in emissions is likely to occur and

where regional plannin. for public serv- Ices, housing and employment is focused.

Although there seemed to be a general

assumption that AQA's shouldbe designated as Cla fI, there are several situations where a State may wish to leave

the clean air portions of an AQMA as Class I or even to redesignate the area to a Class I. This would limit peripheral growth so as to complement the goals of

the AQMP and in this context, the sig- nificant deterioration would actually be a mechanism for partially implementing the AQMP. In addition, there are several

clean air areas which have been proposed as AQMW.'s due to anticipated large-scale

development of natural resources. A

Class I or Class II designation for such areas would probably eliminate the need

for an AQIP for TSP or SO., since the

air quality constraint would be the Class

I or Class II increment. Therefore, a "dedesignation" of the AQMA for TSP or

FEDEMILL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-71hUSJlDAY, DCFtEER 5, 1974

4-9511
RULES AND REGULATIONS

SO, may be appropriate. In any case, the

Administrator recommends that any proposed significant deterioration redesignation have boundaries consistent with

AQMA boundaries to facilitate the development of the AQMA plan.

A Class I designation does not neces- sarily mean that an AQMP would be re- quired. For example, a clean air area might be designated Class I on the

basis of a marginal anticipated deterioration in air quality which exceeds the

Class II increments. However, the anticipated resulting air quality would still

be well below the national standards. If

little additional development were anticipated over the subsequent 10-year

period so as to threaten the national

standards, no AQMP would be required,_

Furthermore, it is important to recognize, that area classifications do not necessarily imply current air quality or current land use patterns. Instead, classifications should reflect the desired degree of change from current levels and

patterns.

A number of public comments indicated concern that these regulations

would create a duplication of new source review procedures, which would require a source owner to apply to several different governmental agencies before -he

could commence construdtion.

Where the State assumes responsibility

for carrying out the new source review

procedure under these regulations, most

of the concerns expressed above should

be eliminated. Procedurally and administratively, the significant deterioration re- view is virtuall identical to existing new source review procedures included

in the implementation plan and, in fact,

application could probably be made on the same forms. No additional sources

would be covered by the significant deterioration review. The only difference

between the two new source reviews is in

the tests which must be met before approval will be granted. Instead of meeting only the emission limitations which are part of the applicable plan, sources covered by the significant deterioration

review must also meet an emission

limitation which is consistent with the

application of best available control

technology. The most restrictive emission limitation supersedes all others. In

acdition to not causing a violation of

any national standard, sources covered

by the significant deterioration review

must not cause an applicable air quality increment to -be exceeded. Technically, the calculations needed to determine if

these additional tests will be met are

very similar to those already being done.

Therefore, where a State administers

these regulations, integration with the

existing plan should be'relatively easy, resulting in only minor additional resource demands. If States do not assume

responsibility for implementing these

regulations, EPA, through its Regional Offices, will carry out the new source

review as required by the Act. Since this

may cause duplication of effort on the

part of EPA and the States, as well as

additional requirements for source

owners, the Administrator strongly urges

States to accept delegation of these

regulations or to develop their own regulations pursuant to the guidance to

be issued shortly pursuant to Part 51 of

this chapter.

In response to public comments, the

Administrator is considering the addition of other source categories, such as asphalt concrete plants and ferro-alloy

plants, to these regulations. One possibility is to add those sources for which new source performance standards for

particulate matter and sulfur dioxide

have been proposed or promulgated un- der Part 60 of this chapter. A proposal

to add other source categories will be

issued shortly. One comment indicated confusion as to what functions the Administrator intended to delegate to States under these

regulations. The confusion apparently

related to the definition of "Administrator" under paragraph (b) (3) as including the Administrator's "designated

representative." Although the term "Administrator" is used in paragraph (c),

relating to the approval of State re- designation, the Administrator does not

intend to designate to a representative

outside the Agency the review and approval functions- under this paragraph.

As indicated in paragraph (f), the only

functions which will be delegated to

States will be the preconstruction review

under paragraphs (d) and (e).

A question was raised as to whether an area could have one classification for

SO and another for TSP. Different

classifications for SO2 and TSP may

make sense in certain situations, and the

Administrator does not intend to

preclude this option.

Several public comments requested

that the technical procedures for determining the air quality impact of a new source be specified by EPA. The techniques the Agency intends to use in most cases are set forth in "Guidelines for Air

Quality Maintenance Planning and

Analysis," Vols. 10 and 12. Volume 10,

"Reviewing New Stationary Sources,"

pertains to the air quality impact of individual sources, while Vol. 12, "Applying

Atmospheric Simulation Models to Air

Quality Maintenance Areas," will be used

to determine the impact of other growth

and development in the area affected by

the source. These documents are available for inspection at EPA's Regional Offices and the EPA Freedom of Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, and will be available

shortly for general distribution through

the National Technical Information

Service, 5258 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151. The Administrator, or States which will be implementing the

preconstruction review as EPA's agent,

is not required to use the techniques in

these documents if other techniques are more appropriate in certain circumstances.

There was considerable divergence of

opinion over the initial classification of

all areas. Industrial groups generally

supported an initial designation of Class

I so as to minimize disruption of projects scheduled to commence construction

in the near future. Environmental groups

supported an Initial designation of Class

I, fearing that a Class II or III designation would permit air quality deterioration of some clean areas before States

could act to redesignate areas to a more restrictive classification. The Administrator continues to feel that an Initial

Class II designation represents the most

reasonable compromise between these

widely differing positions. Also, since the

regulations apply only to sources which

commence construction after June 1,

1975, the Administrator feels that this

deferral should reduce disruption to the

Industrial sector while permitting States

sufficient time to consider reclassifying

any area either to Class I or I before

requests for approval must be acted

upon. There were several questions raised

concerning the appropriate size of an area which should be considered for re- designation. Calculations havq shown

that.because of the small air quality increments specified for Class I areas,

these levels can be violated by a source located many miles inside an adjacent

Class Tr or 311 area. For example, a power

plant which just meets the Class IX increment for SO- could under some con- ditions violate the Class I increment for

SO 60 or more miles away. Under the

regulations promulgated below, a source could not be allowed to construct if it

would violate an air quality increment

either in the area where the source is to

be located or in any neighboring area in

the State. Therefore, wherever a Class I area adjoins a Class II or M area, the

potential growth restrictions, especially

for power plant development, extends

well beyond the Class I boundaries into

the adjacent areas. A similar situation

exists, to a greater or lesser degree,

wherever areas of different classification

adjoin each other. Therefore, the area with the less restrictive classification

should include an additional area at the

periphery where It is clearly recognized

that development will be somewhat re- stricted due to the adjacent "cleaner" area. As a result, a Class I redesignation

could be fairly limited in size, yet the adjoining Class II or Class III areas would

need to cover a substantial area in order

to fully utilize the Class II or III increment. Again, It should be clear that the

Class II or MI increment could only be

fully utilized toward the center of the area and that at the periphery, allowable

deterioration will be dictated by the adjoining Class I area rather than the Clatz

II or III increment.

The distance a large source would need

to be located away from a Class I boundary Is more dependent on the meteorological conditions in the area rather

than the size of the source. Where very

long pollutant travel times from the source to the receptor are involved, the

assumptions concerning the persistence

of wind direction and atmospheric stability are critical. At some point, it can be

assumed that a receptor will be virtually

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-7THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

42512
RULES AND REGULATIONS

unaffected by a source, regardless of the source strength, since the critical

meteorological conditions would not be

expected .to persist long enough to move the pollutants from source to receptor for any significant period of time. This

distance is, of course, dependent on local

meteorological conditions,- but for most areas the maximum distance would be 60

to 100 miles.

CHUINGES TO THE RE GULATIONS

1. Deftnition of Hodified Source. The

term "expanded source" was used in the

proposal in place of the more commonly used term "modified source" in order to

specifically exclude from the precon- struction review sources which increase

emissions solely due to switching from a low sulfur to a higher sulfur content fuel.

The proposed definition of expanded source was related to whether a source increase'd emissions through a "major capital expenditure." This phrase was criticized by many as being too vague. Therefore, the general term "modified

source" has been reinstated, along with a specific exemption for fuel conversion, which exemption is applicable only to the

significant deterioration review proce- dures. The general definition of modified source in Part 52 is changed slightly to

be more specific and to be consistent with

the definition used in Part 60. Changes to the definition of modification in Part

60 were proposed on October 15, 1974 (39 FA 36946) and comments on this pro- posal are presently being analyzed. It is the Administrator's intent to change the

definition of modification under Part 52

to be consistent with the final definition

of -this term under Part 60.

These changes are not intended to modify the applicability of either the pro- posed significant deterioration regula- tions or other new source review pro- cedures promulgated elsewhere in Part

52.

2. Deftnition of best available control

technology. Since this term may be used

elsewhere in Part 52 in the future, it has

been defined in the general definitions

section 6f Part 52. The definition is con- sistent -with the wording used in the August 27 proposal. It should be noted that new source performance standards

(NSPS) may only apply to certain affected facilities within a large source For example, only basic oxygen process furnaces in a steel mill are presently covered by NSPS, while blast furnaces, scarfing operations and other significant sources within the mill are not presently covered. BACT must be determined for

these facilities on a case-by-case basis

until such time as NSPS are issued for

these other facilities.

3. Deftnition of baseline air quality concentration. The proposal intended to

establish-the baseline air quality as that

air quality existing as of the effective

date of regulation, adjusted to include

air resource commitments resulting from

approval of other air pollution sources pursuant to existing new source review

procedures in the plan. The definition of

baseline air quality has been clarified to

reflect this intent and the calculation

has been simplified by specifying the use of 1974 air qqallty data rather than 1973

data. No substantive change is intended

by this revision.

4. Conditions for applying for redcslg- nation of areas. In order that the Administrator have an adequate basis for

determining whether an application to

redesignate an area should be approved or disapproved, a provision has been

added to paragraph (c) (3) (11) to require that the necessary Information be a part of the hearing record on the proposed designation. Specifically, the hearing rec- ord must show that the social, environmental and economic effects of the pro- posed redesignation have been evaluated

for the area being reclassified as well as for adjacent areas and that regional and

national interests have been considered.

The Administrator will provide addLtional guidance to assist States in developing their redesignatlon proposals and analyzing the impact of such

redesignatlons.

5. State reclassificaton of Federal and

Indian Lands. Various public comments

indicate that Federal lands should ba

subject to State jurisdiction. EPA did

not intend to preclude State redesigna- tions provided that the Federal Land

Manager can elect to keep the air qual- ity over Federal lands in a more pristine condition than the State might designate. Therefore, the regulations have

been revised to subject Federal lands to

State redeslgnatlons but reserve to the

Federal Land Manger the authority to

subject such lands to a more stringent designation. This approach Is consistent

with section 118 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f) which requires that Federal agencies having Jurisdiction over any property or facility meet substantive State air pollution control standards and limitations. There Is nothing in

the Clean Air Act or the legislative history of that Act that Indicates the Congress intended to preclude the Federal

Government from meeting more restrictive standards than are Imposed by the

States. This provision also ensures that

national forests and parks can be pro- tected by the Federal Government from

deterioration of air quality. The different

treatment accorded lands of exclusive

Federal jurisdiction has been eliminated

since the revised regulations mae It

clear that the Federal Government can protect air quality over all Federal lands.

In accordance with Executive Order

11752, these regulations do not require Federal facilities to comply with State or local administrative procedures with re- spect to pollution abatement and con- trol. Review of new sources on Federal

lands is reserved to EPA, except as State

review is permitted by a Federal Land

Manager with respect to activities con- ducted under Federal leases.

The State of New Mexico commented

that the proposed regulations appeared to take authority away from the States

to regulate air pollution over Indian

lands. These regulations were not intended to alter the present legal relationships between the States and Indian

Reservations within the States. As these

relationships vary from State to State, EPA has not attempted to define such

relationships but has modified the pro- posed regulations to clarify- that thee

is no intent to alter theze relationships. Where States have not assumed juris- diction over Indian lands, the reguila- tions provide that the Indian govern- ing body may propose redesignations to

the Admini'trator. Boundary problems between Indian and State lands are dealt with in the same way that boundary problems between two States are dealt with, as discussed below. This is

consiostent with the independent status

of Indian lands not subject to State

laws.

6. Public comment on proposed redesIgnations. In order to permit the pub- lie an opportunity to comment on whether a proposed redesignatlon should be approved or disapproved, the

Administrator will publish all proposed redesignatlons in the Fem= RGsER as proposed ruleraking and provide a least 30 days for submission of public

comments.

7. Preconstruction review and BACT

in Class III areas. Several public com- ments criticized the proposed rezulations for exempting sources in Class M areas from preconstruction review. It was pointed out that there would be no procedure to prevent construction of a source in a Class II area which would

violate an increment in an adjacent

Class I or If area. Therefore, the regu- lations promulgated below require that new sources, wherever they are located,

must be reviewed to determine the impact on air quality In adjacent regions.

In order to minimize the deterioration caused by Jndivtdual sources, the

proposal has been modified to make the

BACT requirements applicable wher- ever the source is located, not just in

Class I or II areas. Since a source located

many miles away from a Class I area could easily use up the entire Class I

increment, - as discussed below the

necessity to minimize emissions as much as possible in all areas is parti- cularly Important.

8. Determination of allowable air

quality increment. The provisionis of

paragraph (d) (2) (1) have been modified to be more specific and to specify that reduction of emissions from existing sources which contributed to the

baseline air quality concentration should

be accounted for in determining the un- used portion of the allowed air quality increment.

9. EPA review of state redesignations. The proposed regulations did not adequately cover problems created when a State or Indian Governing Body wishes

to designate one or more of its areas in

such a way that it will have a negative Impact on other States or Indian Reservations. These regulations provide that a State or Indian Governing Body must

take into account the effect of proposed redeslgnations on other States, Indian

Reservations, and regional and national

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEEtiR 5, 1974

42513
42514

interests. Where no State or Indian Governing Body pratests the redesignation

of another State or Indian Reservation,

the Administrator will only review the

redesignation to determine whether it is

arbitrary and capricious. However, where a State or Indian Governing Body protests a redesignation to the State pro- posing the redesignation and to the Administrator, the Administrator will take an expanded role of review in which he

will balance the competing interests involved.

10. Specification o1 emission limitation.

In order to ensure that the requirement for applying BACT is properly imple- mented, the provisions of paragraph (d)

(2) ii) have been modified to require that an emission limitation be established as a condition to approval. This places the

emphasis on emissions rather than the

presence of any particular control equipment. This change also makes the BACT

requirement for sources not covered by NSPS more consistent with the NSPS

requirements. However, if the Administrator determines that technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a-par- icular class of sources would make the

imposition of an emission standard infeasible, he may instead prescribe a design or equipment standard requiring the application of best available control

technology. Such standard shall to the

degree possible set forth the emission re- ductions achievable by implementation of such design or equipment, and shall

provide for compliance by means which

achieve equivalent results.

11 Responsibility for performing air

quality impact analysis. A number of

public comments suggested that the re- viewing agency analyze the air quality impact of additional growth that has

occurred In the vicinity of the proposed source since the reviewing agency is more likely to have the necessary data which

Is needed. The Administrator has con- cluded that it would be more appropriate for the reviewing agency to perform the

air quality impact analysis based on information submitted by the applicant. This change will eliminate the uncer- tainty which was expressed concerning the requirement that the applicant an- alyze the air quality impact of general growth and development "in the area affected by the proposed source," since the

reviewing agency will define this area and perform the calculations required. Also the provisions of paragraph (d) (3) do not require the applicant to submit

growth data with each application. However, the reviewing agency may request such data from the applicant in cases where it does not have the necessary information and will specify the area over which such information is required. 12. Procedures for public participation. The procedures specified in paragraph

(e) for public comment on an application

to construct have been modified to be

consistent with the procedures contained

in EPA's regulations for indirect source review (39 FR 25292). The changes allow the reviewing agency to require adRULES AND REGULATIONS

ditional information, where necessary, and permit the applicant to respond to

public comments involving his applica- tion to construct.

13. Sources subject to review. As pro- posed on August 27, several of the 19 source categories subject to the precon- struction review appeared to be restricted to an individual process (e.g. Kraft

pulp nifl recovery furnaces) rather than

all emission points on the premises. The

wording has been. changed to be con- sistent with the listing of the other source categories and to make clear that

all emission points associated with a stationary source must be considered in

determining whether the source will violate an applicable air quality increment. This change allows sintering plants to be dropped from the list, since

sintering operations will be covered un- der the primary metals industries which are subject to review under these regula- tions.

A detailed explanation of the technical and policy considerations which form

the basis for these regulations is being prepared. Upon completion, the Administrator will publish a notice in the

FEDERAL REGISTER announcing the availability of this information for public inspection.

These regulations will be effective

January 6, 1975 and will be applicable to sources commencing construction on or after June 1, 1975.

(Secs. 110(c) and 301(a) of the Clean Air

Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 1857 c-5(c) and

1857 g(a) ])

Dated: November 27, 1974.,

RUSSELL E. TIRAr,

Administrator.

Subpart A, Part 52, Chapter I, Title

40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

1. In § 52.01, paragraph (d) is- re- vised and paragraph (f) is added. As

amended § 52.01 reads as follows:

§ 52.01 Definitions.

(d) The phrases "modification" or "modified source" mean any physical change in, or change in the method of

operation of, a stationary source which

increases the emission rate of any pollutant for which a national standard hasbeen promulgated under Part 50 of this

chapter or which results in the emission

of any such pollutant not previously emitted, except that:

(1) Routine maintenance, repair, and

replacement shall not be considered a physical change, and

(2) The following shall not be con- sidered a change in the method of op- eration:

(I) An increase in the production rate, if such increase -does not exceedthe operating design capacity of the"

source;

(ii) An increase in the hours of oper- ation;

(lii) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material, if prior to the effective date of a paragraph in this Part which Imposes conditions on or limits modifications, the source is designed to accom- modate such alternative use.

Wf) The term "best available control

technology," as applied to any affected

facility subject to Part 60 of this chapter, means any emission control device or technique which Is capable of limiting emissions to the levels proposed or pro- mulgated pursuant to Part 60 of this

chapter. Where no standard of perform- ance has been proposed or promulgated for a source or portion thereof under

Part 60, best available control technology shall be determined on a case-by-caso basis considering the following: (1) The process, fuels, and raw material available and to be employed in the

facility Involved,

(2) The engineering aspects of the ap- plication of various types of control techniques which have been adequately demonstrated,

(3) Process and fuel changes, (4) The respective costs of the appll- cation of all such control techniques,

process changes, alternative fuels, etc.,

(5) Any applicable State and local

emission limitations, and (6) Locational and siting considerations.

2. Section 52.21 Is revised by designat. ing the first paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and () to

read as follows:

§ 52.21 Significant deterioration of atl

quality.

-(a) Plan disapproval. Subsequent to

May 31, 1972, the Administrator reviewed

State implementation plans to determine

whether or not the plans permit or pre- vent significant deterioration of air qual- ity in any portion of any State where the

existing air quality is better than one or more of the secondary standards. The

review indicates that State plans gener- ally do not contain regulations or pro- cedures specifically addressed to this

problem. Accordingly, all State plans are disapproved to the extent that such

plans lack procedures or regulations for

preventing significant deterioration of

air quality In portions of States where

air quality Is better than the secondary standards. The disapproval applies to all

States listed in Subparts B through DDD

of this part. Nothing in this section shall

invalidate or otherwise affect the obliga- tions of States, emission sources, or other

persons with respect to all portions of

plans approved or promulgated under

this part.

(b) Definitions. For purposes of this

section:

(1) The phrase "baseline air quality concentration" refers to both sulfur dioxide and particulate matter and means the sum of ambient concentration levels

existing during 1974 and those additional

concentrations estimated to result from sources granted approval (pursuant to

approved new source review procedures in the plan) for construction or modification but not yet operating prior to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974
RULES AND REGULATIONS

January 1, 1975. These concentrations

shall be established for all time periods

covered by the increments set forth un- der paragraph (c) (2) (i) of this section,

and may be measured or estimated. In

the case of the maximum three-hour

and twenty-four-hour concentrations,

only the second highestr concentrations

shouldbe considered.

(2) The phrase "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency or his designated rep-

-resentative.

(3) The phrase "Federal Land Manager" means the head, or his designated representative,-of any Department or Agency of the Federal Government which

administers federally-owned land, including public domain lands.

(4) The phrase "Indian Reseriation '

means any federally-recognized reserva- tion established by Treaty, Agreement,

Executive Order, or Act of Congress. (5) The phrase "Indian Governing

Body" means the governing body of any tribe, band, or group of Indians subject

to the jurisdiction of the United States

and recognized by the United States as possessing power of self-government.

(6) "Construction" means fabrication,

erection, or installation of an affected

facility. (7) "Commenced" means that an own- er or operator has undertaken a continu- ous program of construction or modification or that an owner or operator has en- tered into a binding agreement or con- . tractual obligation to undertake and

complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of construction or modification.

(c) Area designation and deterioration

increment. (1) This paragraph applies to

all States listed in Subpart B through DDD of this part, all lands owned by the

Federal Government, and Indian Reservations, except those counties or other

functionally equivalent areas that per- vasively exceed any national ambient air

quality standards for sulfur oxides or total suspended particulates and then

only with respect to such pollutants.

States shall notify theAdministrator by

June 1, 1975, of those areas -which are above the national air quality standards

and therefore are exempt from the re- quirements of this paragraph.

(2) i) For purpose of this paragraph, areas designated as Class I or Class'II

shall be limited to thr following increases

in pollutant concentrations over the

baseline hir quality concentration:

Area demigtiow

Polutant Clas I Clan II

M) (gm)

Particulate matter.

Annual geometric mean_ 5 10

22hr-inWximmn_._ -- 10 s0 Sulfur-doxide:

A nnn arthmeUc ean... 2 15

24-hr msAimnm..-- . 5 100 - 25 700

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph, areas designated as Class III shall be

limited to concentrations of particulate

matter and sulfur dioxide no greater than the national ambient air quality

standards.

(3) i) All areas are desIgnated Class II as of the effective date of this paragraph. Redesignation may be proposed by the

respective States, Federal Land Managers, or Indian Governing Bodies, as provided below, subject to approval by the

Administrator.

(Cl) The State may submit to the Administrator a proposal to redesignate areas of the State Class I, Class II, or Class III, provided that:

(a) At least one public hearing is held

in or near the area affected and this pub- lic hearing is held in accordance with

procedures established in § 51.4 of this

chapter, and

C) Other States which may be affected by the proposed redesignation are notified at least 30 days prior to the public hearing, and

(c) A discussion of the reasons for the

proposed redesignatton is available for

public inspection at least 30 days prior

to the hearing and the notice announcing

the hearing contains appropriate notification of the availability of such discussion, and

(d) The proposed redesignation is

based on the record of the State's hearing, which must reflect the basis for the

proposed redesignation, including con- sideration of (I) growth anticipated in

the area, (2) the social, environmental,

and economic effects of such redesignation upon the area being proposed for

redesignation and upon other areas and

States, and (3) any impacts of such pro- posed redesignation upon regional or na- tional interests.

(ii) Except as provided In subdivision

(iv) of this subparagraph, a State in

which lands owned by the Federal Government are located may submit to the

Administrator a proposal to redesignate

suchlands Class I, Class Ir or Class III

in accordance with subdivision (i) of the

subparagraph provided that:

(a) 'The redesignation Is consistent

with adjacent State and privately owned

land, and

C) Such redesignation is proposed

after consultation with the Federal Land

Manager. (iv) Notwithstanding subdivision (IMI)

of this subparagraph, the Federal Land

manager may submit to the Administrator a proposal to redesignate any Federal lands to a more restrictive designation than would otherwise be applicable

provided that:

(a) The Federal Land Manager follows procedures equivalent to those re- quired of States under paragraph (c) (3)

(ii) and,

(b) Such redesignation Is proposed

.after consultation with the State(s) in

which the Federal Land is located or which border the Federal land.

(v) Nothing in this section Is intended

to convey authority to the States over Indian Reservations where States have

not assumed such authority under other

laws nor is it ntended to deny Jursdiction which States have assumed under

42515

other laws. Where a State hai not as- sumed Jurisdiction over an Indian Reservation the appropriate Indian Governing Body may submit to the Administrator a proposal to redesignate areas Class

I, Class II, or Class 11, provided that:

(a) The Indian Governing Body follows procedures equivalent to those re- quired of States under paragraph (c) (3) (ii) and,

(b) Such redesignation is proposed

after consultation with the State(s) in

which the Indian Reservation is located or which border the Indian Reservation

and, for those lands held in trust, with

the approval of the Secretary of the

Interior.

vi) The Administrator shall approve, within 90 days, any redesignation proposed pursuant to this subparagraph as follows:

(a) Any redezignatlon proposed pursuant to subdivisions (ii) and (i1) of this

subparagraph shall be approved unless

the Administrator determines (1) that

the requirements of subdivisions (11) and

(Li) of this subparagraph have not been

complied Mth, (2) that the state has

arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded

relevant considerations set forth in subParagraph (3) (HI) (d) of this paragraph, (3) that the State has not requested delegation of responsibility for carrying

out the new source review requirements

of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this sec- tion.

b) Any redesignation Proposed pursuant to subdivision (iv) of this subparagraph shall be approved unless he determines (1) that the requirements of

subdivision Civ) of this subparagraph have not been complied with, or (2) that

the Federal Land Manager has arbitrarily and capriciously disrezarded relevant cbnslderations set forth in subpara- graph (3) (Hl) (d) of this paragraph. (c) Any redesignation submitted pursuant to subdivision (v) of this subpara- graph shall be approved unless he determines (1) that the requirements of

subdivision (v) of this subparagraph

have not been complied with, or (2) that

the Indian Governing Body hs arbltrarily and capriciously disregarded

relevant considerations set forth in subparagraph (3) (Hi) (d) of this paragraph. (d) Any redesignation proposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be ap- proved only after the Administrator has

solicited written comments from affected Federal agencies dud Indian Governing Bodies and from the public on the

proposal (e) Any proposed redesignation protested to the proposing State, Indian

Governing Body, or Federal Land Man%.,

ager and to the Adminitrator by another

State or Indian Governing Body because

of the effects upon such protesting State or Indian Reservation shall be approved by the Administrator only if he determines that in his judgment the redesig- nation appropriately balances considerations of growth anticipated in the area proposed to be redesignated; the

social, environmental and economic effects of such redesignation upon the

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974
42516

area being redesignated and upon other

areas and States; and any impacts upon regional or national interests.

(vii) If the Administrator disapproves any proposed area designation

under this subparagraph, the State, Federal Land Manager or Indian Governing

Body, as appropriate, may resubmit the

proposal after correcting the deficiencies

noted by the Administrator or reconsidering any area designation determined

by the Administrator to be arbitrary and

capricious. (d) Review o1 new sources. (1) This

paragraph applies to any new or modified stationary source of a type identified

below which will be located in any State

listed In Subpart B through DDD of this

part, which source has -not commenced

construction or expansion prior to

June 1, 1975. A source which is modified,

but does not increase the amount of a pollutant other than sulfur oxides or particulate matter, or is modified to

utilize an alternative fuel, or higher sulfur content fuel shall not be subject to

this paragraph. (I) Fossil-Fuel Steam Electric Plants

of more than 1000 million B.T.U. per

hour heat input.

(i) Coal Cleaning Plants,

(iII) Kraft Pulp Mills.

(iv) Portland Cement Plants.

(v) Primary Zinc Smelters.

(vi) Iron and Steel Mills.

(vii) Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants.

(viii) Primary Copper Smelters.

(ix) Municipal Incinerators.capable of

charging more than 250 tons of refuse

per 24 hour day.

(x) Sulfuric Acid Plants.

(xi) Petroleum Refineries.

(xii) Lime Plants.

(xii) Phosphate Rock Processing

Plants.

(xiv) By-Product Coke Oven Batteries.

(xv) Sulfur Recovery Plants.

(xvi) Carbon Black Plants (furnace

process).

(xvii) Primary Lead Smelters.

(xviii) Fuel Conversion Plants.

(2) No owner or operator shall com- mence construction or modification of a source subject to this paragraph unless

the Administrator determines that, on the basis of" information submitted

pursuant to subparagraph (3) of this

paragraph:

(I) The effect on air quality concen- tration of the source or modified source,

in conjunction with the effects of growth

and reduction in emissions- after January 1, 1975, of other sources in the area

affected by the proposed source, will not

violate the air quality increments applicable in the area where the source will

be located nor the air quality increments

applicable in any other areas. The analysis of emissions growth and reduction

after January 1, 1975, or other sources

in the areas affected by the proposed

source shall include all new and modified

sources granted approval to construct

pursuant to this paragraph; reduction

In emissions from existing sources which

contributed to the baseline air quality;

RULES AND REGULATIONS

and general commercial, residential, industrial, and other sources of emissions

growth not included in the definition of

baseline air quality which has occurred

since January 1, 1975.

(ii) The new or modified source will

meet an emission limit, to be specified

by the Administrator as a condition to

approval, which represents that level of

emission reduction which would be

achieved by the application of best available control technology, as defined in

§ 52.01(f), for particulate matter and

sulfur dioxide. If the Administrator determines that technological or economic

limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources would make the imposi- tion of an emission standard Infeasible,

he may instead prescribe a design or

equipment standard requiring the ap- plication of best available control technology. Such standard shall to the degree possible set forth the emission reductions

achievable by implementation of such

design or equipment, and shall provide

for compliance by means which achieve

equivalent results.

(iii) With respect to modified

sources, the requirements of subparagraph (2)(i) of this paragraph shall

be applicable only to the facility or facilities from which emissions are Increased.

(3) In making the determinations required by subparagraph (2) of this

paragraph, the Administrator shall, as

a minimum, require the owner or operator of the source subject to this para- graph to submit: site information;

plans, description, specifications, and

drawings showing the design of the

source; information necessary to determine the impact that the construction

or modification will have on sulfur

dioxide and particulate matter air

quality levels; and any other information necessary to determine that best

available control technology will be ap- plied. Upon request of the Administrator, the owner or operator of the source

shall also provide information on the

nature and extent of general commercial,

residential, industrial, and other growth

which has occurred in the area affected

by the source's emissions (such area to be

specified by-the Administrator) since the

effective date of this paragraph. (4) (i) Where a new or modified source

is located on Federal lands, such source

shall be subject to the procedures set

forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this

section. Such 'procedures shall be in addition to applicable procedures conducted

by the Federal Land Manager for administration and protection of the affected

Federal Lands. Where feasible, the

Administrator will coordinate his review

and hearings with the Federal Lanq

Manager to avoid duplicate administrative procedures.

(i) New or modified sources which

are located on Indian Reservations shall

be subject to procedures set forth In

paragraphs (d) ana (e) of this section.

Such procedures shall be administered

by the Administrator lir cooperation

with the Secretary of the Interior with

respect to lands over which the State

has not assumed Jurisdiction under other

laws.

(iII) Whenever any new or modified source Is subject to action by a Federal

agency which might necessitate preparation of an environmental Impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321), review by the Administrator conducted

pursuant to this paragraph shall be co- ordinated with the broad environmental

reviews under that Act, to the maximum

feasible and reasonable.

(5) Where an owner or operator has

applied for permission to construct or modify pursuant to this paragraph and

the proposed source would be located

in an area which has been proposed for

redeslgnatlon to a more stringent class

(or the State, Indian Governing Body, or Federal Land Manager has announced

such consideration), approval shall not

be granted until the Administrator has

acted on the proposed redesignation.

(e) Procedures for public partioipation. (1) Si) Within 20 days after receipt

of an application to construct, or any

addition to such application, the Administrator shall advise the owner or operator of any deficiency in the Information

submitted in support of the application.

In the event of such a deficiency, the

date of receipt of the application for the

purpose of paragraph (e) (1) (11) of this

sdction shall be the date on which all

required information is received by the

Administrator.

(ii) Within 30 days after receipt of a complete application, the Administrator shall;

(a) Make a preliminary determination

whether the source should be approved,

approved with conditions, or disapproved.

(b) Make available In at least one location in each region in which the proposed source would be constructed, a copy

of all materials submitted by the owner or operator, a copy of the Administrator's

preliminary determination and a copy or summary of other materials, If any,

considered by the Administrator In making his preliminary determination; and

(c) Notify the public, by prominent

advertisement in newspaper of general

circulation in each region in which the

proposed source would be constructed,

of the opportunity for written public

comment on the Information submitted

by the owner or operator and the Administrator's preliminary determination on the approvability of the source. (iii) A copy of the notice required pursuant to this subparagraph shall be sent

to the applicant and to officials and agencies having cognizance over the locations

where the source will be situated as follows: State and local air pollution con- trol agencies, the chief executive of the

city and county; any comprehensive re- gional land use planning agency; and any

State, Federal Land Manager or Indian

Governing Body whose lands will be significantly affected by the source's

emissions.

(iv) Public comments submitted In

writing within 30 days after the date

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974
RULES AND REGULATIONS

such information is made available shall

be considered by the Administrator in

making his final decision on the application. No later than 10 days after the

close of the public comment period, the

applicant may submit a written response

to any comments submitted by the public.

The Administrator shall consider theapplicant's response in making his final

decision. 'All comments shall be made

available for public inspection in at least one location in the region in which

the source would be located.

(v) The Administrator shall take final

action on an application within 30 days

after the close of the public comment

period. The Administrator shall notifk

the applicant in writing of his approval,

conditional approval, or denial of, the

application, and shall set forth his reasons for conditional approval or denial.

Such notification shall be made available

for public inspection in at least one location in the region in which the source

would be located.

(vi) The Administrator may extend

each of the time periods specified in

paragraph (e) (1) (ii), (iv), or (v) of

this section or such other period as agreed to by the applicant and the

Administitor.

(2) Any owner or operator who constructs, modifies, or operates a stationary source not in accordance with the

application, as approved and conditioned

by the Administrator, or an.y owner or

operator of a stationary source subject

to this paragraph who- commences construction or modification after June 1,

1975, without applying for and receiving approval hereunder, shall be subject

to enforcement action under section 113

of the Act.

(3) Approval to construct or modify 'shall become invalid if construction or expansion is not commenced within 18

months after receipt of such approval or if construction Is discontinued for a pe- riod of 18 months or more. The Administrator may extend such time period

upon a satisfactory showing that an ex- tension is justified.

(4) Approval to construct or modify shall not relieve any owner or operator of the responsibility to comply with the

control strategy and all local, State, and

Federal regulations which are part of

the applicable State Implementation

Plan.

(f) Delegation of autliority. (1) The

Administrator shall have the authority

to delegate responsibility for implement- ing the procedures for conducting source review pursuant to paragraphs (d) and

(e), in accordance with subparagraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this paragraph.

(2) Where the Administrator delegates the responsibility for Implement- ing the procedures for conducting source review pursuant to this section to any Agency, other than a regional offlce of

the Environmental Protection Agency,

the following provisions shall apply: (I) Where the agency designated is not an air pollution control agency, such

agercy shall consult with the appropriate State or local air pollution control

agency prior to making any determination required by paragraph (d) of this

section. Similarly, where thb agency designated does not have continuing re- sponsibilities for land use planning, such

Agency shall consult with the appropriate State and local land use planning

-agency prior to making any determination required by paragraph (d) of this

section.

(l) A copy of the notice pursuant to

paragraph (e) (1) (ii) (c) of this section

shall be sent to the Administrator

through the appropriate regional office.

(3) In accordance with Executive

Order 11752, the Administrator's authority for implementing the procedures for

conducting source review pursuant to this

section shall not be delegated, other than

to a regional office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, for new or modified sources which are owned or operated by the Federal government or for new or modified sources located on Federal

lands; except that with respect to the

latter category, where new or modified sources are constructed or operated on Federal lands pursuant to leasing- or other Federal agreements, the Federal

land Manager may at his discretion, to

the extent permissible under applicable

statutes and regulations, require the

lessee or permittee to be subject to a

designated State or local agency's pro- cedures developed pursuant to paragraph s (d) and (e) of this section.

(4) The Administrator's authority for

Implementing the procedures for conducting source review pursuant to this

section shall not be redelegated, other

than to a regional office of the Environmental .Protection Agency, for new or

modified sources which are located on Indian reservations except where the State

has assumed Jurisdiction over such land

under other laws, in which case the Administrator may delegate his authority to

the States in accordance with subparagraphs (2), (3). and (4) of this paragraph.

LFR Doc.7-28353 Filed 12-4-74;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 235-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1974

42517