# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 39 Fed. Reg. 34533 1974

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Sep 12 11:59:23 2013

-- 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.

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

Hospital will bepaid to a duly appointed fiduciary of such person. The benefits payable toa veteran who hasnowife (or husband), child, or dependent parent will be paid by an institutional award in accordance with §3.852 if there isno such fiduciary. Benefits payable to veterans' dependents who are patients at this hospital will be paid direct or to a fiduciary of such dependent, except that any awards nowbeing paid to the super- intendent will be continued while such dependent remains a patient.

20. Section 3.854 is revised to read as follows: 

### § 3.854 Limitation on paylcnts for minor.

- Benefits will not be authorized to a fiduciary recognized or appointed for a child, by reason ofits minority, for any period subsequent to the day preceding -the date on which the child will attain its majority under the law of the State in which the child resides. Payments on
or after that date, if otherwise in order, willbemade direct to the child, if com- petent, or, if incompetent and direct payment under §3.850 Is not in order, to a.Educiary appointed for the child as a mentallyincompetentadult.

20. Section 3.856 Is revised to r ad as follows: 

### § 3.856 Change ofname offemale fiduciary. It a female fiduciary receiving benefits in such capacity marries or Is re- stored toher former name by divorce decree, her statement setting forth her present name maybe accepted.

IMR.- Dac.74-2399 Filed 9-25--74;8:45 am]

Title 39-Postal Service
CHAPTER I--U.S. POSTAL SERVICE

SUBCHAPTER E--RESTRICTIONS ON PRIVATE CARRIAGE. OF LETTERS COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS FOR PERMISSIBLE. PRIVATE CARRIAGE Carriage of Letters and Enforcement and Suspension ofthe Pffvate Express Statutes

- Correctio a InFRDoc.74-21301, appearing atpage 3320. in the issuefor Monday, September 16, 1974, in §320.3(b), inthetwelfth line,theword "many" shouIdbe changed toread "any".

Title40---Protecton ofEnvironment

CHAPTER 1--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUECHAPTER -AIR PROGRAMS

-IFRL 261-7] PART 51-REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION- PLANS Variances, Enforcement Orders, and Confifcentiality Provisions
DEFERmm oF IzPwLmnm=Or PL=O REQUIESIE During the past 12 months, four Circuit Courts ofAppeal have addressed the question of whether a ztate may extend

a source's compliance date under the State's implementation plan without satisfying thesubstantive andprocedural requirements of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act (Act). Three of these courts--the First, Second and Eighth Circuits 1

--held that source compliance dates could be deferred through the mechanism of a State-Lssued and EPAapproved variance or enforcement order but only up to the attainment date for meeting theprimary ambient air quality standards. In most instances, the date for meeting the primary standards is no later than July 31, 1975. However, in

some air quality control regions (AQCRs), primary standardsattainment dates have been deferredup to two years through extensions granted under au- 

### thority of Section 110(e) ofthe Act.

From a technical standpoint, the pronouncements of the three circuit courts referredtoabove canbetreated asapply- ingonly tothose States whichare within the jurisdiction of the courts. However, the Administrator believes that when three appellate courts uniformly rLsolve

an issue which Iscommon to every state, the decisions of the courts should be accepted as strongly persuasive guidance for Agency action in all states. Accordingly, the Administrator has determined that. the proper course of action Is to revise 40 CFR, Part 51 (Regulations for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans) to be concistent with the decisions of the court-, and to simultaneously disapprove In 40 CFR Part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) the provisions in all plans which have deferral authority inconsistent with the terms of 40 CFR Part 51 as revised- Thisrevision and disapproval are published as final rulemak

### Ing in another part of this FzD=EL R1 rs=. Regulations limiting the Issu-

ance of varianses. enforcement orders or other state-Initiated measures designed to defer compliance with the applicable plan are proposed below for all states. Those proposedregulations willsupersedo the varianceportion oftheJune 11,1974 proposal (39 FR 20511) for the State of Washington. This action is being,taken

so that the regulatory language will be uniform for all states. For the snme
reason these regulations are belfi proposed for Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, even though regulations were promulgated previously for these states. Thefourth appellate court2to address the Issue of compliance date deferrals held that section 110(f) oftheAct is the exclusive means of deferring a com- pliance date evenwherethedeferral does not go beyond the date for attaining primary standards. It is the AdmlnLstrator's opinion that compliance dates which do not go beyond applicable at2Natuel ezources Defeaz Council, Ine. (13RDC), et aL v. EPA, 478 P.2d675 (Izt Mr. 1973). NRDC- et. aL v. EPA (Ni=ca 2-1712. anCL72,2165i 2nd Cir, Morch 13,1974), Nun
et. a. v. EPA, 483 P. 2d 60 (8th Cdr. 1973). N7P.DO et a]. v. EPA (N. 32-2102, 5th Mr. February 8, 1974). tainment dates forprimary orsecondzay standards shouldbe dealt with as a plan revision pursuant to 40 CFR 51.6 

### and 51.8. Accordinaly, the Agency h re- 

### questedthe SupremeCourt toreview the Fifth Circuit Court'sopinion andtostay thedecision ofthecourtpending theout-

come ofthereview. OnJune 10,1974 the 

### Supreme Court granted both request. However, the Fifth Circuit opinion, unles overturned by the Supreme Court, 

### represents the law in the six-state area encompassed by the boundaries of the Flith CirculL Therefore, althouuh the Part 51 and related Part 52 actions arlnounced hereinwill apply tothese states if the decision of Filth Circuit on this 

### Issue is Overturned, final Agency action

on this matter must await the decision of the Supreme Court. The variance and/or enforcement order provisions presently contained in implementation plans, forthesix affectedstateswill, however,, bi subject to the categorical disapproval notice which is also being an- nounced herein.

As indicated above, there may be instanceswhere,pursuant totheprovisions of section 110(e) ofthe Act, the attainment date for meeting a primary st ndard in a given AQMC has beenextended beyond 1975. Where such an extension 

### has been granted, revised 95L32(f) provIde that compliance date deferrals which go no further than the extension date may be issued without loekng to the provizions of § 110(f) of the Act. However, such deferrals will be subject to the requirement that they apply only to those sources for which technological Inability served as the basis for the sec- tlon 110(e) extension. In addition, the compliance date reflected in such defer-

ras must still be baseduponthat degree of prozrcs which, under the circumstances, Is as expeditious as can prac- ticably be required of the source.

In dLinauishing between the "pre" and "post" attainment date periods for meeting a primary standard it appears 

### that the First Second and Eighth Circuits were limiting their holdings to those compliance date provisions which

were part ofa controlstrategy for meeting-aprimary ambient airquality standard. Nevertheless, the Agency construes the "pre" and "Pat attainment date principle-established by these courts in therealm ofprimary standards as a substantiaI indication ofwhat must be done with respect to compliance date provisions designed to meet the secondary standard-- Accordingly, the Part 51 re- vision promulgated beIow extends the "pro" and "pos" attainment date dichotomy to the secondary standards and provides that (apartfrom reliefohtainableundersectfon 110(f)) nocompli-

ance date which is-part of a control strategy designed-to meet the secondary stan6ards may be extended beyond the applicable attainment date specified in 40 CIR Part 52.

Unlike themid-1975 datewhich, under section 110(a)(2) A) (A)-D, is generally the dateforattaining theprimary standards, the Clean Air Act provides no specife date for attaining the secondary standards, buk, Instead, instructs the states to

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 188--THURDAY, SU.MiER 26, 1974,

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

adopt (and the Agency to approve) sec- ondary standard attainment dates which-

are reasonable. Part 51, however, established mid-1975 as the reasonable date, subject to a State's showing that good

cause existed for deferring the date. Many states have made such a showing. Accordingly, the Part 51 postponement provisions which apply to the secondary standards do not have a generally applicable attainment date.

With respect to variances aimed at secondary standard plan requirements, it has been contended that the approval of such variances would depend on a potentially difficult determination of whether the plan requirement being waived isnecessary for attainment ofprimary versus secondary standards. The Administrator has considered this argument and found it to be unpersuasive. Where a plan contains a single control strategy for attainment of both primary and secondary standards, the attainment dateswillbeidentical, thus makingit un- necessary to distinguish whether a vari-

ance would prevent attainment of primary or secondary standards. Correspondingly, wherethe dateforattainment of primary standards is different than thesecondary standards attainment date, the plan contains separate control meas-
ures necessary for attainment of each standard. Thus, any variance could be easily associated withthecontrolstrategy for attainment of a specific standard.

Also as a result of the Fifth Circuit decision referenced above, §52.26(b) is added below to make it clear that pro- visions in an implementation plan which either explicitly or implicitly direct State officials, charged with constructing the terms of enforcement orders or variances, to giveproper regard to availability of technology, source hardship, or economic burden can not be considered

as a basis for approving a compliance date postponement which gops beyond the end limits established under Part 51

as revised herein. The new language has been added as a means of discouraging source-ifitlated State court litigation

over the reasonableness of enforcement orders which have compliance schedule terms consistent with the requirements of Part 51 as revised herein. Without such qualifying language, it is feared that some sources might choose to litigate properly constructed compliance schedules issued by State officials onthe ground that a later compliance date is warranted because ofhardship,economic burden, or technological difficulties.

BY contrast, the new language is not intended, inany way, to conflict with the existing Part 51 language which is con- tained in §51.2(b) and (d). These two paragraphs, which have always per- mitted States to consider the cost-effectiveness of a control strategy as well as its social and economic consequences, still permit States to do so. However, the introduction of the new language re- ferred to above makes it clear thatthese considerations cannot serve as the basis for Issuing an enforcement order or granting a,variancewhichhas aterminal, date that goes beyond the applicable end date established under the Part 51 revisions contained herein.

The Fifth Circuit decision involving the "source hardship" issue was not re- lated specifically to variances and en- forcement orders, but dealt with general enabling statutes which mandated such consideration in all state agency actions. The Court ordered the Administrator to disapprove the general statute in the Georgia plan. Although this disapproval is published below for the Georgia plan, the Administrator does not agree that it is necessary to disapprove such general provisions in all other state plans, since Part 51 allowssuch considerations under the specific circumstances noted above. Therefore, the provisions of §52.26(b) only restrict the use of such hardship provisions where it would conflict with the provisions of §§ 51.15(d) or 51.32 (f

as revised below. By focusing on vari-

ances and enforcement orders, it is the Administrator's judgment that all llegal

use of a generalized technological and "source hardship" provision will be pre- vented. This is consistent with the following statement in Fifth Circuit opinion: "It is, of course, appropriate for state air pollution control officials to take into account cost and feasibility factors in most circumstances; their doing so is proscribed only when those considerations are in conflict with con- siderations of public health," I.e., primary standards attainment dates.

Since the Part 51 revisions and the

new Part 52 provision set forth below (as well as the plan disapprovals which derive from the Part 51 revisions) are the result of circuit court decisions, the Administrator finds -that good cause exists for promulgating the revisions as immediately effective final rulemaking and for publishing the accompanying plan disapprovals as immediately effective final Agency action. For the same reason, §52.26 is also being published as final Agency rulemaking andwill also be effective on the date of publication. However, the Administrator feels that it would be appropriate to accept com- ments from the public and the affected States concerning the actions taken below. Comments may be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency, Standards implementation Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Mr. Clark. All relevant comments received not later than 30 days after the date of publication ofthis notice will be considered, and where appropriate, revisions will be, made. Comments received will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of Public Affairs, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. The Administrator strongly urges States to modify their enabling legisla- tion to be consistent with the revised Part 51 and new Part 52 requirements set forth below, and to submit such re- vised legislation to the Administrator for approval. Where approvable changes are submitted, the Adminktrator v.111 revoke the disapproval Isued below. CONF rNTxALxTY 

### PnovmsoNs
Under §110(a) (2) (F) oftheAct,State plans must provide for the periodic re- porting of emission data which must b made available to the public in areason- able manner. While many of the plans approved by the Administrator do provide that the public musthave acce.s to emission data, they also contain con- fidentiality provisions which might, in

some circumstances, cause such data to be withheld from public scrutiny,

Although, inorlginally approving such plan provisions, the Administrator was careful to obtain the State attorney general's opinion whenever he questioned theefficacy ofa given emission discloiure provision, three Circuit Courts 1 have held that the presence of a confidentiality provision in-a plan so beclouds the public's right to emission data that the emission disclosure provisions must be disapproved. Since, as indicated earlier, the Administrator views such conslstently decided Judicial opinions as tantamount to a mandate for nation-wide regulatory action, he has again reviewed every implementation plan to determine whether apparently sound Emission disclosure provisions may-as envisioned by the courts--be compromised by language which deals with confidentiality. The disapproval notices issued below are the result ofthis review.

During the week of August 12, 1974, the Agency wrote to each state affected by this action, except those three states which had a previous disapproval. In these letters,theAgency requested information relative to any state court deelsions which havefound theemi.sion disclosure provisions disapproved below to be consistent with the emkssion disClo-

sure requirements of section 110(a) (2) (F) of the Clean Air Act. Should the Agency be advised by any of the,,*States that their emission disclosure provisiont; have been addressed by a state court and found to be consistent with Federal re- quirements, the Agency will evaluate such information with a view to withdrawal of the applicable disapproval an- nounced herein. Moreover, to provide such States with an adequate oppor- tunity torespondtotheAgency's inquiry, the Agency's disapproval action will not become effective until promulgation of proposed replacement regulations dealing with public availability of emilsion data which appear In another parb of this FtDERAL nEOISrTr, HIowever, to com- ply with the decision of theFifth Circuit Court, the disapproval of Georgia's con- fidentialityprovision istobeimmediately effective.

Again,' the Administrator urges ttatej4
to correct their confIdentiality provisions

SNflDO et al. v. ElPA, 478 .M2d 875 (lot air. 1973). IM= et al. v. IPA (Nci. '72-17238 and 72-2165, 2nd 01r., rlaroh 13, 1974), IRDO ob al. v. IPA ('o, 72-202, 5th 0ir., IYcbrmary8, 1974).

FEDERAL REGISER, VOL. 39, NO. 188--THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1974N 

### RULES AND REGULATIONS

tobeconsistent withtherequirements of theAet. thusallowing the Administrator to revoke the disapprovals issued below. (42 US.C. 1857c-5 and 1857g)

Dated: September 19,'1974.

J-OHT QUA LLES, ActingAdministrator.
Parts 51 and 52, Chapter ,'Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amendedasfollows:

, 1. In §51.11, Paragraph (g) is added


### asfollows.: §51.11 Legal authority.

(g) Enabling authorityrelating to the issuance of enforcement orders, vari-

-ances, or other State-initiated measures designed to defer compliance with aplan requirement which is necessary for attainment of a national standard shall specifically provide for consistency with thefollowingrequirements.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (g) (2) of this section compliance may not be deferred beyond the applicable attainment date specified In Part 52 of thig chapter.Where a plan contains different attainment dates for primary and secoidary standards (i.e., specific meas- ures have been Identified for attaining primary standards and additional meas- ures have been [dentified for attaining secondary standards), a plan requirement necessary for attainment of primary standards may notbe deferred beyond the primary standards attainment date and a plan requfrement for attainment of secondary standards may not bedeferred beyond the secondary standards attainment date.

(2) 'Where the Governor of a State has requested, and the Administrator (underauthority ofsection 110(f)- ofthe Clean Air Act) has approved a corupli-

ance date postponement with respect to
a given source, compliance may be de- 'ferred for such source only up to the expiration date ofthe 110(f) postpone. ment. (3) Where the Administrator has ex- tended the dateforattainment of a pri-

- mrystandardbeyondJuly31, 1975,pursuant ta section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act. compliance withaplanrequirement necessarFforattainment ofsuchprimary standardmaybedeferredbeyondJuly31, 1975, only for the source or sources for which the extension was granted and only up to the expiration date of the 110(e) extension.

2. In §5L5. paragraph (d) is added

asfollows: § 51,15 Complianceashedules.

(d Regulations

- relating to the Is
### suance of compliance schedules in conjunction with or pursuant to enforcement orders, variances, or other meas- ures designed to obtain compliance with

a plan requirement '-lwich is, necessary for -attainment-of a .tional standard shall specifically provlde for- consistency with the following requirements. (1) Except as provided in pa=r ph (d) (2) ofthis section, complianceschedules may not set forth dates of compli-

ance which extend beyond applicable attainment dates specified in Part 52 of this chapter.Where a plan contains differeft dates of attainment for primary and secondary standards, a compliance schedule for a source Included In the applicable control strategy for attainment ofprimary standards may not seb forthadate ofcompliancewhich extends beyond the attainment date for such primary standards, and a compliance schedule for a source Included In the applicable control strategy for attainment of secondary standards may not set forth a date of compliance which extends beyond the attainment date for suchsecondary standards.

(2) WheretheGovernor ofaStatehas requested, andthe Administrator (under authority of section 110(f) of the Clean AirAct) haz approved a compliance date postponement with respect to a given source, the compliance schedule forsuch

sourcemaysetforth a date ofcompliance only up to the expiration date on the 110(f) ofpostponement.

(3) 'Where the Administrator has ex- tended the datefor attainment ofa primary standardbeyond July31,1975,pur- suant to section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act, compliance with a plan requirement necessaryforattainment ofsuchprimary standardmay bedeferredbeyondJuly31, 1975, only for the source or sources for whichtheextension was grantedandonly up to the expiration date of the 110(e) extension (4) Any change to a compliance date shall.not become part of the applicable Plan until thechange hasbeen submitted to and approved by the Administrator

as a plan revision under §§ 51.0 and 51.8 of this chapter.

3. In §51.32, paragraph (f) Isrevised. As amended, §51.32 reads as follows: § SI.3- 

### Xtequest for I-yenr postpone-

menr.

(fMAState's decisionto deferthe date bywhich a source must achieve compli-

ance with 

### an applicable plan provision will,not necessitate a request for post- ponementunder this sectionifthedeferral meets the following requirements:

(1) Compliance isnot deferredbeyond the applicable attainment date specified in;Part 52 of this chapter.Where a plan contains different dates of attainment for primary and secondary standards (i.e., specific measures have been Identifiedfor attainment ofprimarystandards and'additional measures havebeen Identifiedfor attainment ofsecondarystandards), the applicable attainment date for thepurposes of this paragraph Shallbe determined by whether theplanrequirement being deferred is necessary for attainment of primary standards or. secondary standards.

(2) Where the Administrator has extended the date for attainment of a primary standardbeyond July31,1975,pursuant to section 110(e) of the CleanAir 

### - 4535

Act, compliancewith a-.-a requirement necessaryforattainneintof sucpzi.nary sadardin.be deferredbe,ond July31, 1975, only for the cource or sources for which the extension was granted and only Up to the expiration date of the 110(e) extension..

4. In Subpart A ofPart 52, the Introductorypragraph ofg5-.0yi amended

as fo]lormx: 

### § 52.20 Attainment dates for 

### national standard.
Eachsubpart contains a sectionwhich specifies the latest dates by which na- tional standards axe to be attained in each.region in the State.An attainment date which only refers tor a month and

a year (such as July 1975) shall be con- struedto meanthelast dayofthe month Inquestion. 0 *

5. In Subpart A of Part 52. §52.26 is added as follows: § 52.26 Variances and enforcement ordcrs. (a) Subzequent to May 31, 1972, the Administratorreviewed stateImpIementation plans to determine whether the plans vill allow or permit the issuance ofvariances, enforcement orders,orother state-InItiated measures designated to defer compliance with anapplicableplan requirement after the dates specified in section 110 ofthe Clean Air Act for attainment of national primary and sec- ondary ambient air quality standards. The review indicates that state plans generally are not consistent with the Clean Air Act in this regard. Accordingly, all state plans are disapproved to the extent that their enabling authority and regulations permit the deferral of compliance with applicableplan requirements beyond the statutory attainment dates specified In theClean AirAct.TWi disapproval applie to all Stateslistedin Subparts B through DDD of this part.

(b) No provision in a phn which either explicitly or implicitly directs a state officialto take cc-izance ofsource hardship, availability of technoloy, or economic burden -aybe construed to Permit the Issuance of a varli en- forceiment order, or any other stateInitiated deferral measure which has a terminal date for compliance that con- filcts with the provisions: o §§515(d)

or51.32(f) ofthis chapter.

G.I. Subpart C 552.73 is added as follows: 

### § 5?.73 CGncralrequirenents.

(a) The requirements of 51.0(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission dataIs inadequate.

7. In 152.74, paragraph Cc) is added

as follows: 

### §52.74 Legalauthority.

(c) Therequirements of§51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met since Y 46.- 03.180 of the Alaska Statutes could, in

some circumarices, prohibit the disFEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 188---THURSDAY, SEIPTEIBER 26, 1974RULES AND REGULATIONS

closure of emission data to the public. Therefore, §46.03.180 is disapproved.



### 8. In Subpart E, §52.178 is added as follows: 

### § 52.178 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availabilityofemissiondata is inadequate.

9. Section 52.179 is added as follows: 

### §52.179 Legal authority.

(a) Therequiements of §51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met since sec- tion 82-1937 of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore. section 82-1937 is disapproved.

10. In Subpart H, § 52.376 is added as follows: 

### § 52.376 General requirements,.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since section 22a-3-1 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, Department of Environmental Protection, Article 1, Part 3, and section 19-508-10(b) of the Connecticut Administrative Regulations could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, sections 22a-3-1 and 19-508-10(b) are disapproved.

11. In Subpart H, § 52.377 is added as follows: 

### § 52.377 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of §51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, since section 19-513(a) of the Connecticut Environmental ProtectionAct could,in somecircumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 19-513(a) is disapproved.

12. In Subpart K, § 52.525 is added as follows: 

### § 52.525 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability ofemission data is inadequate. 13. Section 52.526 is added as follows: 

### § 52.526 Legalauthority.

(a) The requirements of §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter are not met, since §403.- 111 oftheFloridaStatutes could,in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, §403.111is disapproved.

14. In Subpart L, §52.577 is added as follows: 

### § 52.577 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

15. Section 52.578 is added as follows: 

### § 52.578 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirements of §51.11 (a) (6) ofthis chapter are not met, since section 08-908 ofthe Georgia Codecould in'some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 38-908 is disapproved.

16. Section 52.579 is added as follows: 

### § 52.579 Economic feasibility considerations.
Section 88-906(h), (i), (k), (o) and (q) of the Georgia Code is disapproved, since consideration of economic feasibility could,in some cases, conflict with the requirements of the Act that primary standards be attained asexpeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than July 1975.

17. In Subpart AT, §52.624 is added as follows: 

### § 52,624 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of § 51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability ofemission data is inadequate.

18. Section 52.625 is added as follows: 52.625 Legal authority. (a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) of thischapter arenot met, since sections 322-64(5) and 322-66 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, sections 322-64(5) and 322-66 are disapproved. 1 19. In inSubpart P, §52.774 isadded as follows: 

### § 52.774 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

20. In §52.775, paragraph (b) is added

as follows: 

### § 52.775 Legal authority.

(b) Therequirements of § 51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, since section 3 of Chapter 16 of the IndianaAir Pollution Control Law could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public.Therefore, section 3 of Chapter 16 is disapproved.

21. In §52.925, paragraph (a) Is added

as follows: § 52.925 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority toprovide for public availablity ofemission data is inadequate.

22. In Subpart T, §52.982 is added as follows: 

### § 52.982 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, since sections 6.4 and7.5 of theRegulation, Air Control Commission could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public.

23. Section 52.983 is added as follows: 

### § 52.983 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, since section 2210 of the Louisiana Air Control Law could, in some circumstances, pro- hibit the disclosure of emi,-sion data to the public. Therefore, section 2210 1 disapproved.

24. In Subpart V, paragraph (c) of §52.1074Is added as follows: § 52.1074 Le-gal authority.

0: 0 0 0 0 (c) The requirements of 951.1l a, (6) ofthis chapter are notmet, since section 698(f) ofthe Maryland Air Quality Control Act could, in some clrcumstanccs, prohibit the disclosure of emission data tothepublic. Therefore, section 698(f) 'I. disapproved.

25. Section 52.1113 is added as follows: § 52.1113 General requirennt'p.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, Mnce sections 10.03.35.111 and 10.03.35.10A ofthe Mary- land Regulations governing thecontrol of Air Pollution could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emt%- sion data to the public. Therefore, regtt- lations 10.03.35.111 and 10.03.35.10A are disapproved.

26. In Subpart W, §52.1133 Isadded au follows: § 52.1133 Lezal autiority.

(a) The requirements of §51.11(a) (61 of this chapter are not met since section 142B of chapter 111 ofthe General Laws of Massachusetts could, in some clrcumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emisision data to the public. Therefore, sec- tion 142B Is disapproved.

27. Sections 52.1156 isadded asfollows, § 52.1156 'General requirement.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

28. In Subpart Z, paragraph (bi or §52.1275 Is added asfollows: 

### § 52.1275 Legalauthority.

0 0 o (b) The requirements of 

### §51.11(a) (60) ofthis chapter are not met, since section 7106-117 of the Mississppl Code could, In

some circumstances, prohibit the dahclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 7106-117 Is disapproved.

29. In Subpart Z, §52.1277 Is addtd as follows: § 52.1277 General rcquirements, (a) The requirements of §51.10(c) of this chapter are not met, since the legal authority to provide public availability ofemission data is inadequate.

30. In Subpart BE, §52.1378 Is added

as follows: § 52.1378 General requiremaenti.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legad authority to provide for public availability of emission datals inadequate.

31.InSubpart BB, §52.1379 is addedau follows:

FEDERAL IEGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 188-THUP.SDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1974RULES AND REGULATIONS



### § 52.1379 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of §

### 51.11(a) (6) of thischapter are not met, since section 69-3918 

### 6f the Montana Clean Air Act could,insome circumstances prohibitthe disclosure ofemission data to the public. Therefore, section 69-3918is disapproved. 32.In subpart DD, paragraph (c) of §52.1473isaddedas follows: § 52.1473 General requirements.

(c)The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, since Nevada -Air Quality Regulation 2.7.1 could in

some circumstances, prohibit the disclo-

sure of emission data to the public. Therefore,regulation 2.7.1 isdisapproved.

33. Section 52.1474 is'added asfollows: 

### §52.1474 Legalauthority. -(a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter arenot met, since section 445.576 oftheNevada AirPollution Control Law could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data
to the public. Therefore, section 445.576 is disapproved.

34. In Subpart EE,§52.1526 is added

asfollows: 

### § 52.1526 General requirements..

(a)The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, since New HampshireAirPollution ControlRegulation number 18, section In1D could, in

some circumstances, prohibit the disclo-

sure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section IILDis disapproved.

35.-In Subpart FF §52.1574 is added

asfollows: §-52.1574 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority .to provide for public availability of emission data i inadequate.

36. In Subpart 

### FE, §52.1575 is added

asfollows: § 52.1575 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirementsof §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter are not met, since section 26:2C-9 of the New Jersey-Air Pollution Control Law could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emissibn datato thepublic.Therefore, section 26:.2C--9 is disapproved.

37. In Subpart GG, §-52.1623 is added

asfollows: 

### § 52.1623 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapterare notmet,since New lexico Environmental Improvement Board Air Quality Control Regulations 702E ahd 703.D couldiin some .circumstances, -prohibit the disclosure of emission data
to the public. Therefore, regulations 702. and 1703-D are disapproved.

38. In Subpart GG, §52.1632 is added

asfollows:-

- t§ 52.1632

- Legal qutthority.
(a) 'The requireifients of §51.11(a) (6) of thischapter are not-met, since section 12-14-I0of the New Mexico-Air Quality ControlActcould,in somecircumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data tothepublic. Therefore, section 12-14-10 is disapproved. 39. In Subpart HH, §52.1685 Is added

as follows: 

### §52.1685 Generalrequirements.

.(a) The requirements of §51.10 (e) of this chapter are notmet sinceregulation 200.2 of Title 6 of New York s Code of 

### Rules andRegulations could,in somecircumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, regulation 200.2 is disapproved.

40. Section 52.1686 is added as follows: §52.1686 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of §51.11(a) (6) of thischapter are notmetsince sec- tion 19-0305.2(a) of the New York Environmental Conservation Law could. in

some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 19-0305.2(a) is disapproved.

41. In SubpartJJ,§52.1825 is added as follows:

. 

### § 52.1825 General requirement-.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) ofo this chapter are not met since the legal authority toprovide forpublic availability of emission data Is inadequate.

42. In SubpartJJ,§52.1826 is addedas follows: 

### § 52.1826 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter are notmet, since section 23-25-06 of the North DakotaAir Pollution Control Act could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section23-25-06 is disapproved.

43. In Subpart Il, §52.1926 Isadded as follows: 

### § 52.1926 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met, since Oklahoma regulation 4.2 could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, regulatlon 4.2 is disapproved.

44. In Subpart T, §52.1983 is added

as follows: § 52.1983 Geniral requirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of ,this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide forpublic availability ofemission data is inadequate.

45. In Subpart AIA, §52.1984 is added

as follows: 

### § 52.1984 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, sincesection 449.800(7) of the Oregon Air Pollution Control Laws could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, Section 449.800(7) isdisapproved.

46. In Subpart NN, §52.2024 is added

as follows:

52.2024 Generalrequirements. (a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

47. In Subpart NN, §52.2025 is added

asfollows: 

### §52.2025 Legal authority. (a) The requirements of §5L11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, since section1719 oftheAllegheny HealthDepartment's rules and regulations and section5-1104 ofthePhiladelphia Home Rule Charter could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure ofemission data to the public. Therefore, sec- tions 1719 and 5-1104 are disapproved.

48. In Subpart SS, §52.2274 is added asfollows: 

### § 52.2274 

### Generalrequirements.

(a) The requirements of §51.10(e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

49. In Subpart SS, §522300 is added

asfollows: 

### § 52.2300 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of §51.11(a)' (6) of this chapter are not met, since section 1.07 of the Texas Clean Air Act could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 1.07 is disapproved.

50. In Subpart VV, §52.2424, paragraph (b) is added as follows: 

### § 52.2-424 General requirements.

(b) The requirements of §51.10'e) of this chapter are not met since the legal authority to provide for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

51. In Subpart VV, §52.2430, paragraph (C) s added as follows: 

### § 52.2430 Legal authority.

(c) The requirements of §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter are notmet, sincesection 10-17.21 of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Law could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emls-

- sion data to the public. Therefore, sec- tion 10-17.21 is disapproved.

52. In SubpartBBB, §52.2725 is added

asfollows: 

### § 52.2725 General requirements.

(a) Therequirements of §51.10(e) bf this chapter are not met, since section 2.4 of the Puerto Rico Regulation for Control ofAtmospheric Pollution could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section2.4 is disapproved.

53. InSubpartBBB, §52.2726is added

as follows: 

### § 52.2726 Legal authority.

(a) Therequirements of §51.11(a) (6) ofthis chapter are notmet. since Article 17 of Puerto Rico Act 9 could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, Article 17 is disapproved.

[FRDoc.74-22305 Fnied 9-25--74;8:45 am)

[FRL 268-7) PART 52---APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS Alabama; Clarification of Plan Revisions

On August 8, 1974 (39 FR,28528), the Administrator announced his approval,

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 188--THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1974 

### 343:37RULES AND REGULATIONS

with one exception, of a revision in the Alabama implementation plan. This re- vision changed the limits on sulfur dioxide emissions from fuel combustion

sources. The purpose of the present no- tice Is to clarify the language of the preamble to that approval.

The plan revision in question, after public hearing, was adopted by the Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission

on May 29, 1973. and was submitted to EPA with supporting control strategy changes on August 21. 1973. This modification ofSO, emission limits wasbased

on an analysis made by the-State. The analysis showed that an insufficient sup- ply of fuels would be available to allow compliance with the regulations origi- nally setforth intheState's implementation plan. Alabama was one of the first States torelax the stringency ofitsorigi- nalsulfur dioxide emission limitationsin such a way as to make optimum use of current fuel supplies while assuring attainment and maintenance of the na- tional ambient air quality standardsthe intent of tile Agency's clean fuels policy.

Prior to the public hearing, adoption, and official submittal of this plan revision, EPA had not discussed with the Statethe feasibility ofestablishing emission limits which varied within an air quality control region, but rather had stressed the desirability of approaching thematter onaregionalbasis.

EPA's evaluation of the stringency of control needed in various portions ofthe Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland Mountains AQCRwasbased on information provided by the State inIts planre- vision submittal, and the Agency per- formed no independent evaluation.

Discussion will continue between Alabama and the Agency to determine the optimum course of action to be.followed in respect to further changes in the State's SO regulations. Any additional changes willrequire extensive analysis to
assure that no violation of primary standards would result.

Dated: September 17. 1974.

JACKE.RAVAIT, Regional Administrator, RegionIV. [FRDoo.74-22308 Filed 9-25-74;8:45 aml

[FRL 262-21 PART 80-REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES ControlsApplicableto MotorVehicle Manufacturers On January 10, 1973 (38 FR 1254), EPA promulgated regulations prescrib- Ing certain labeling and gasoline fillei inlet design requirements applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers. Those regulations require that any motor" vehicle that is equipped with an emission control device which the Administrator determines will be significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline (e.g., any vehicle which is certified us- ing a catalytic converter), shall be labeled "Unleaded GasOline Only", both

on the Instrument panel and adjacent to the gasoline filler Inlet compartment and that the filler inlet shall be so designed as to prevent the insertion of

a gasoline pump nozzle dispensingleaded fuel. The regulations further require that when such insertion is attempted with the incorrect nozzle, the filler inlet shallbe sodesigned as to immediately activate the automatic shutoff of that nozzle. On September 21, 1973 (38 FR 26449) EPAresponded tothepetitions ofs~veral motor vehicle manufacturers concern- ing these requirements. Specifically, the Agency added a provision allowing approval of alternate unleaded fuel labeling schemes if it is determined that such an alternate scheme fulfills thepurpose of the unleaded fuel labeling re- quirement. Secondly, the design standard for minimum unleaded filler inlet restriction was redefined so as to prevent theinsertion of afuel nozzle with a diameter equal to or greater than 0.930", this diameter being less than the legal minimum diameter for leaded fuel noz- zles. Finally, an ascertainable standard of performance was established defining the immediate shutoff requirement for attempted filling with aleaded fuel noz- zle in an unleaded fuel filler inlet. The term "immediately" in the regulatio4

was defined to require the design of the unleaded fuel filler inlet to activate the automatic shutoff ofa standard nozzle so
as toallow amaximum of 700 cubic cen- timeters offuel to be delivered into the vehicle tank perattempt.

Several motor vehicle manufacturers subsequently requested EPA to reex- amine the testing specifications for insertion of a fuel nozzle into the fuel filler inlet.Additionally, EPA further investigated the flow rate setting of the nozzle valve when such testfilling is attempted.

EPA has reconsidered these specifications and has determined to take the following actions:

1. Positioning ofthenozzle spouttdtlin thefillerinlet.Theregulations require that a vehicle which requires the use of unleaded gasoline shall have afuel filler Inlet designed so as to-prevent the insertion ofafuel nozzleequal to orgreater than 0.930 inches in diameter. Theregu- lations further state that if a fill is attempted with a nozzle of diameter equal to or greater than 0.930 inches, not more than 700 cc of gasoline may pass into the tankon any one attempt before automatic shutoff occurs. As a test for com- pliance with these standards, the regu- lations statedthat during such attempted introduction of fuel, the terminal end of the nozzle spout shall be within the filler inletbeyond the cam surface. Manufacturers requested clarification of this positioning statement because (1) It addresses only those filler necks using a

cam type cap locking device and (2) It does not adequately define the location of the spout during the test. The Agency concludes that the positioning statement is ambiguous, and hence adds the requirements that,the terminal end of the spout, shall be placed at various depths within thefillerinlet inany manner that may be reasonably expected to be encountered. 2. Nozzle flow rateduring attempted filling. As part of the test for an attempted fill of an unleaded fuel fillerInlet with a nozzle equal to or greater than 0.930 inches in diameter, the regulations state that the nozzle valve shall be fully and rapidly opened to a 12±1 gallon/minute flow setting. The Agency has determined that this flow rate is abnormally higher than that encoun- tered in thefield since (1) it is expected that service station attendants do not normally open the nozzle valve to the maximum position, but set the nozzle at
some intermediate stop point and (2) pump and nozzle manufacturer, state that the maximum designed flow rate of 12 gallons/minute is usually only foumd in new pump and nozzle assemblies. Field deterioration lowers the maximum attainable flow rate to typically 10 gal- lons a minute or less. Based upon this informationthe Agency ree3tablishe3 the fuel flow rate during the test at 8±1 gallons/minute.

The Agency finds that good cause ex- ists for omitting as unnecessary and Impracticable a notice of propoed rule making, public comment, and postponoment of effective date in the Issuance of these amendments, in that (1) they arc designed to clarify the regulations or to make moreflexible their application; (2) to the extent substantive revisions are made they are of minor regulatory Impactand were recommended by the regu- lated parties; and (3) considerations of' lead time for the 191/6 model year dictate immediate promulgation.

Dated: September 20, 1974. JoHIn QuaM.s, ActingAdministrator. Part 80, Chapter I, Title40 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows, effective beginning with the 1070 model year, as defined in 40 CPR 85.001, 85.201, 85.701, 85.801, and 85.901.

The provisions of this Part 80 are issued under sections 211 and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857f-6c and 1857g).

Section 80.24, paragraph (b) (1) of Part 80, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is revised toread as follows: 

### §80.24 Controls applicable to motor ve. hicle manufacturers.

* 0 0 (b) (1) Such filler inlet shall be designed to pass not morethan 700 c.c. ofgasoline into the tank when the introduction of gasoline into such filler Inlet Is attempted from a nozzle, as described In §80.22(f) (1.), which has a vacuum port the center of which is located within 0.87 inches of the tip and which pas,=e less than 120 c.c. of fuel when fully and rapidly activated with the nozzle

vacuum port plugged. During such attempted introduction, the nozzle shall be inserted such that Itsautomatic shutoff vacuum port Is at various depths within the filler inlet, except those locations which cause fuel spillage (not including splash back) outside thefillerInlet shallnotbeused.

The nozzle may have any orientation within thefiller Inlet which mayreaon- ably be expected to be encountered in

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 188-HURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1974 

### 34538