+(,121/,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 be paid to a duly appointed

fiduciary of such person. The benefits

payable to a veteran who has no wife (or

husband), child, or dependent parent

will be paid by an institutional award

in accordance with § 3.852 if there is no 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 now being 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 of its 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,

will be made 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 mentally incompetent adult.

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

§ 3.856 Change of name of female fiduciary.

It a female fiduciary receiving benefits in such capacity marries or Is re- stored to her former name by divorce decree, her statement setting forth her

present name may be 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 of the Pffvate Express Statutes - Correctio a

In FRDoc. 74-21301, appearing at page

3320. in the issue for Monday, September 16, 1974, in § 320.3(b), in the twelfth

line, the word "many" shouIdbe changed

to read "any".

Title 40---Protecton of Environment

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 of Appeal have addressed the

question of whether a ztate may extend a source's compliance date under the

State's implementation plan without

satisfying the substantive and procedural

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 the primary 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 standards attainment

dates have been deferred up to two years

through extensions granted under au- thority of Section 110(e) of the Act.

From a technical standpoint, the pronouncements of the three circuit courts

referredto above can be treated as apply- ing only to those States which are within

the jurisdiction of the courts. However,

the Administrator believes that when

three appellate courts uniformly rLsolve an issue which Is common 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- This revision and disapproval are published as final rulemakIng 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 proposed regulations willsupersedo

the variance portion of the June 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.

The fourth appellate court 2 to address

the Issue of compliance date deferrals

held that section 110(f) of the Act is the

exclusive means of deferring a com- pliance date even where the deferral 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.2d 675 (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 for primary or secondzay

standards should be dealt with as a plan

revision pursuant to 40 CFR 51.6 and

51.8. Accordinaly, the Agency h re- quested the Supreme Court to review the

Fifth Circuit Court's opinion and to stay

the decision of the court pending the out- come of the review. On June 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 herein will apply to these 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, for the six affected states will, however,, bi subject to the categorical disapproval notice which is also being an- nounced herein.

As indicated above, there may be instances where, pursuant to the provisions of section 110 (e) of the Act, the attainment date for meeting a primary st ndard in a given AQMC has been extended

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 based upon that 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 of a control strategy for meeting-a primary ambient air quality standard. Nevertheless, the Agency construes

the "pre" and "Pat attainment date

principle -established by these courts in

the realm of primary standards as a substantiaI indication of what 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 (apart from relief ohtainable undersectfon 110 (f) ) no compli- 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 the mid-1975 date which, under

section 110(a) (2) A) (A)-D, is generally the

date for attaining 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 is necessary for attainment of primary 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

dates will be identical, thus making it un- necessary to distinguish whether a vari- ance would prevent attainment of primary or secondary standards. Correspondingly, where the date for attainment

of primary standards is different than

the secondary standards attainment date,

the plan contains separate control meas- ures necessary for attainment of each

standard. Thus, any variance could be

easily associated with the control strategy 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 give proper 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 on the

ground that a later compliance date is

warranted because of hardship, economic

burden, or technological difficulties.

BY contrast, the new language is not

intended, in any 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 that these

considerations cannot serve as the basis

for Issuing an enforcement order or

granting a, variance which has a terminal,

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 allows such 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 and will 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 of this

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) of the Act, State

plans must provide for the periodic re- porting of emission data which must b

made available to the public in a reason- able manner. While many of the plans

approved by the Administrator do provide that the public must have 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, in orlginally approving such

plan provisions, the Administrator was careful to obtain the State attorney general's opinion whenever he questioned

the efficacy of a 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 of this 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, the Agency requested information relative to any state court deelsions which have found the emi.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 to respond to the Agency'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 the Fifth Circuit

Court, the disapproval of Georgia's con- fidentiality provision is to be immediately

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., IYcbrmary 8,

1974).

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

to be consistent with the requirements of

the Aet. thus allowing the Administrator

to revoke the disapprovals issued below.

(42 US.C. 1857c-5 and 1857g)

Dated: September 19,' 1974.

J-OHT QUA LLES,

Acting Administrator.

Parts 51 and 52, Chapter ,' Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: , 1. In § 51.11, Paragraph (g) is added

as follows.:

§ 51.11 Legal authority.

(g) Enabling authority relating to the

issuance of enforcement orders, vari-

-ances, or other State-initiated measures designed to defer compliance with a plan requirement which is necessary for attainment of a national standard shall

specifically provide for consistency with

thefollowing requirements. (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 not be deferred beyond the primary standards attainment

date and a plan requfrement for attainment of secondary standards may not

be deferred beyond the secondary standards attainment date.

(2) 'Where the Governor of a State

has requested, and the Administrator

(under authority of section 110(f)- of the

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 of the 110(f) postpone.

ment.

(3) Where the Administrator has ex- tended the date for attainment of a pri- - mrystandard beyond July 31, 1975, pursuant ta section 110(e) of the Clean Air

Act. compliance with a plan requirement necessarF for attainment of such primary standard may be deferred beyond July 31, 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 as follows:

§ 51,15 Complianceashedules.

(d Regulations -relating to the Issuance 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) of this section, compliance schedules 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 of primary standards may not seb

forth a date of compliance which 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

such secondary standards.

(2) Where the Governor of a State has

requested, and the Administrator (under authority of section 110(f) of the Clean

Air Act) haz approved a compliance date

postponement with respect to a given

source, the compliance schedule for such source may set forth a date of compliance

only up to the expiration date on the

110(f) of postponement. (3) 'Where the Administrator has ex- tended the date for attainment of a primary standard beyond July 31,1975, pur- suant to section 110(e) of the Clean Air

Act, compliance with a plan requirement

necessary for attainment of such primary standard may be deferred beyond July 31, 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

(4) Any change to a compliance date

shall. not become part of the applicable Plan until the change has been 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) Is revised.

As amended, § 51.32 reads as follows:

§ SI.3- Xtequest for I-yenr postpone- menr.

(fM A State's decision to defer the date

by which a source must achieve compli- ance with an applicable plan provision will, not necessitate a request for post- ponement under this section if the deferral meets the following requirements: (1) Compliance is not deferred beyond 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 Identified for attainment of primary standards

and'additional measures have been Identified for attainment of secondary standards), the applicable attainment date for

thepurposes of this paragraph Shall be

determined by whether the plan requirement 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 standard beyond July 31,1975, pursuant to section 110(e) of the Clean Air

- 4535

Act, compliancew ith a-.-a requirement necessaryforattainneintof sucpzi.nary

sadardin.be deferredbe,ond July 31, 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 of Part 52, the Introductorypragraph of g 5-.0yi amended

as fo]lormx:

§ 52.20 Attainment dates for national

standard.

Each subpart contains a section which

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- strued to mean the last day of the month

In question. 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

Administrator reviewed state ImpIementation plans to determine whether the

plans vill allow or permit the issuance

of variances, enforcement orders, or other

state-InItiated measures designated to

defer compliance with an applicable plan requirement after the dates specified in

section 110 of the 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 applicable plan requirements beyond the statutory attainment

dates specified In the Clean Air Act. TWi

disapproval applie to all States listed in

Subparts B through DDD of this part.

(b) No provision in a phn which

either explicitly or implicitly directs a state official to take cc-izance of source hardship, availability of technoloy, or economic burden -ay be 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) or 51.32(f) of this chapter.

G. I. Subpart C 5 52.73 is added as follows:

§ 5?.73 CGncral requirenents.

(a) The requirements of 51.0(e) of

this chapter are not met since the legal

authority to provide for public availability of emission data Is inadequate.

7. In 152.74, paragraph Cc) is added

as follows:

§ 52.74 Legal authority.

(c) The requirements 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, 1974
RULES 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 availability of emission data is inadequate.

9. Section 52.179 is added as follows:

§ 52.179 Legal authority.

(a) The requiements 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 Protection Act could, in some circumstances, 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 of emission data is inadequate.

13. Section 52.526 is added as follows:

§ 52.526 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since § 403.-

111 of the Florida Statutes could, in some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of

emission data to the public. Therefore,

§ 403.111 is 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) The requirements of § 51.11 (a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

08-908 of the Georgia Code could 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 as expeditiously 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 of emission data is inadequate.

18. Section 52.625 is added as follows:

52.625 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not 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 in Subpart P, § 52.774 is added 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) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6) of this chapter are not met, since section

3 of Chapter 16 of the Indiana Air 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 to provide for public availablity of emission 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 and 7.5 of the Regulation, 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) The requirements 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

§ 52.1074 Is added as follows:

§ 52.1074 Le-gal authority. 0: 0 0 0 0

(c) The requirements of 9 51.1l a, (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

698 (f) of the Maryland Air Quality Control Act could, in some clrcumstanccs,

prohibit the disclosure of emission data

to the public. 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 of the Mary- land Regulations governing the control 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 Is added 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 of the 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 is added as follows,

§ 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 as follows:

§ 52.1275 Legal authority. 0 0 o

(b) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (60) of this 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 of emission 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.In Subpart BB, § 52.1379 is added au

follows:

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

§ 52.1379 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11 (a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

69-3918 6f the Montana Clean Air Act

could, in some circumstances prohibit the

disclosure of emission data to the public.

Therefore, section 69-3918 is disapproved.

32. In subpart DD, paragraph (c) of

§ 52.1473 is added as 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 is disapproved.

33. Section 52.1474 is'added as follows:

§ 52.1474 Legal authority.

-(a) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

445.576 of the Nevada Air Pollution 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

as follows:

§ 52.1526 General requirements..

(a) The requirements of § 51.10(e) of

this chapter are not met, since New

Hampshire Air Pollution Control Regulation number 18, section In1D could, in

some circumstances, prohibit the disclo- sure of emission data to the public.

Therefore, section IILD is disapproved.

35.-In Subpart FF § 52.1574 is added

as follows:

§-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

as follows:

§ 52.1575 Legal authority.

(a) The requirementsof § 51.11(a) (6)

of this 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 data to the public. Therefore, section

26:.2C--9 is disapproved.

37. In Subpart GG, §-52.1623 is added as follows:

§ 52.1623 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of § 51.10(e) of

this chapter are not met, since New lexico Environmental Improvement Board

Air Quality Control Regulations 702E

ahd 703.D couldi in 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 as follows:- -

t§ 52.1632 -Legal qutthority.

(a) 'The requireifients of § 51.11(a) (6)

of this chapter are not-met, since section

12-14-I0of the New Mexico-Air Quality

Control Act could, in some circumstances,

prohibit the disclosure of emission data

to the public. Therefore, section 12-14-10

is disapproved.

39. In Subpart HH, § 52.1685 Is added as follows:

§ 52.1685 General requirements. .(a) The requirements of § 51.10 (e) of

this chapter are not met since regulation

200.2 of Title 6 of New York s Code of

Rules and Regulations could, in some circumstances, 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 this chapter are not met since 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 Subpart JJ, § 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 to provide for public availability of emission data Is inadequate.

42. In Subpart JJ, § 52.1826 is added as

follows:

§ 52.1826 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

23-25-06 of the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Act could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public. Therefore, section 23-25-06 is disapproved.

43. In Subpart Il, § 52.1926 Is added 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 for public availability of emission data is inadequate.

45. In Subpart AIA, § 52.1984 is added as follows:

§ 52.1984 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11(a) (6)

of this chapter are not met, since section

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) is disapproved.

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 as follows:

§52.2025 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 5L11(a)

(6) of this chapter are not met, since

section 1719 of the Allegheny Health Department's rules and regulations and

section 5-1104 of the Philadelphia Home

Rule Charter could, In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission 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 as follows:

§ 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)

of this chapter are not met, since section

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 Subpart BBB, § 52.2725 is added as follows:

§ 52.2725 General requirements.

(a) The requirements of § 51.10(e) bf

this chapter are not met, since section

2.4 of the Puerto Rico Regulation for

Control of Atmospheric Pollution could,

In some circumstances, prohibit the disclosure of emission data to the public.

Therefore, section 2.4 is disapproved.

53. In Subpart BBB, § 52.2726 is added as follows:

§ 52.2726 Legal authority.

(a) The requirements of § 51.11 (a) (6)

of this chapter are not met. 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.

[FR Doc.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

343:37
RULES 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 of SO, emission limits was based 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 set forth in the State's implementation plan. Alabama was one of the first

States to relax the stringency of its origi- nal sulfur dioxide emission limitations in

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

State the feasibility of establishing emission limits which varied within an air

quality control region, but rather had

stressed the desirability of approaching the matter on a regional basis.

EPA's evaluation of the stringency of

control needed in various portions of the

Tennessee River Valley-Cumberland

Mountains AQCR was based on information provided by the State in Its plan re- 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 will require extensive analysis to assure that no violation of primary standards would result.

Dated: September 17. 1974.

JACK E. RAVAIT,

Regional Administrator,

Region IV.

[FR Doo.74-22308 Filed 9-25-74;8:45 aml

[FRL 262-21

PART 80-REGULATION OF FUELS AND

FUEL ADDITIVES

Controls Applicable to Motor Vehicle

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 dispensing leaded

fuel. The regulations further require that when such insertion is attempted

with the incorrect nozzle, the filler inlet shall be so designed as to immediately activate the automatic shutoff of that

nozzle.

On September 21, 1973 (38 FR 26449)

EPA responded to the petitions of s~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 the purpose of the unleaded fuel labeling re- quirement. Secondly, the design standard for minimum unleaded filler inlet

restriction was redefined so as to prevent the insertion of a fuel 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 a leaded 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 of a standard nozzle so as to allow a maximum of 700 cubic cen- timeters of fuel to be delivered into the

vehicle tank per attempt. 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 test filling is attempted. EPA has reconsidered these specifications and has determined to take the

following actions:

1. Positioning of the nozzle spout tdtlin the filler inlet. The regulations require that a vehicle which requires the use of

unleaded gasoline shall have a fuel filler

Inlet designed so as to- prevent the insertion of a fuel nozzleequal to or greater than 0.930 inches in diameter. The regu- 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 tank on any one attempt before automatic shutoff occurs. As a test for com- pliance with these standards, the regu- lations stated that during such attempted

introduction of fuel, the terminal end

of the nozzle spout shall be within the

filler inlet beyond 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 the filler inlet in any manner that may be reasonably expected to

be encountered.

2. Nozzle flow rate during attempted filling. As part of the test for an attempted fill of an unleaded fuel filler Inlet 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 the field 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

information the 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 more flexible their application; (2)

to the extent substantive revisions are made they are of minor regulatory Impact and 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,

Acting Administrator.

Part 80, Chapter I, Title 40 of the 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 to read as follows:

§ 80.24 Controls applicable to motor ve. hicle manufacturers. * 0 0

(b)

(1) Such filler inlet shall be designed

to pass not more than 700 c.c. of gasoline 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 Its automatic shutoff vacuum port Is at various depths within the filler inlet, except those locations which cause fuel spillage (not including splash back) outside the filler Inlet shall not be used.

The nozzle may have any orientation

within the filler Inlet which may reaon- ably be expected to be encountered in

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

34538