+(,121/,1(

Citation: 69 Fed. Reg. 10161 2004 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Nov 6 14:04:16 2012

-- 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.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 43/Thursday, March 4, 2004/Rules and Regulations

The Coast Guard certifies under 5

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

because the regulation will only affect

the bridge's current operation by several

minutes per opening per hour and

continue to provide for navigational

needs.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121),

we offered to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they

could better evaluate its effects on them

and participate in the rulemaking

process.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency's

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-

888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-

3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism

under Executive Order 13132,

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on State or local governments and

would either preempt State law or

impose a substantial direct cost of

compliance on them. We have analyzed

this rule under that Order and have

determined that it does not have

implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100,000,000 or more in any one year.

Though this rule will not result in such

an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in the

preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

would not create an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that might

disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments,

because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have

determined that it is not a "significant

energy action" under that order, because

it is not a "significant regulatory action"

under Executive Order 12866 and is not

likely to have a significant adverse effect

on the supply, distribution, or use of

energy. It has not been designated by the

Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a

significant energy action. Therefore, it

does not require a Statement of Energy

Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D,

which guides the Coast Guard in

complying with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and

have concluded that there are no factors

in this case that would limit the use of

a categorical exclusion under section

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this

rule is categorically excluded, under

figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the

Instruction, from further environmental

documentation. Under figure 2-1,

paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an

"Environmental Analysis Check List"

and a "Categorical Exclusion

Determination" are not required for this

rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

* For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117-DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

m 1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33

CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106

Stat. 5039.

* 2. In § 117.261 revise paragraph (ee) to

read as follows:

§ 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

from St. Marys River to Key Largo.

(ee) Commercial Boulevard bridge (SR

870), mile 1059.0, at Lauderdale-by-theSea. The draws shall open on signal;

except that, from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., the

draws need open only on the hour, 20

minutes after the hour, and 40 minutes

after the hour.

Dated: February 23, 2004.

Harvey E. Johnson, Jr.,

Bear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04-4780 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ-082-0072; FRL-7626-1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; ArizonaMaricopa County Ozone, PM-10 and

CO Nonattainment Areas; Approval of

Revisions to Maricopa County Area

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are approving revisions to

the Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline

10161

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 10161 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 43/Thursday, March 4, 2004/Rules and Regulations

(CBG) program currently approved in

the State implementation plan (SIP).

Specifically, we are approving revisions

that, among other changes, replace

Arizona's interim CBG program with a

permanent program, amend the

wintertime CBG program to limit the

types of gasoline that may be supplied,

and remove the minimum oxygen

content requirement for summertime

gasoline.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at EPA Region 9's Air

Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Due to increased security, please call 24

hours ahead of your visit so that we can

arrange to have someone meet you.

Electronic Availability

This document and the Technical

Support Document (TSD) for this

rulemaking are also available as

electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web

page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/

air/phoenixcbg/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,

(AIR-2), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Phone: (520) 622-1622; e-mail:

tax.wienke@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we", "us"

and "our" refer to U.S. EPA.

I. Background

On September 29, 2003 (68 FR 55920),

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking for the State of Arizona. The

notice proposed approval of revisions to

the SIP for Arizona's CBG program.

These revisions to the Arizona CBG

program have been adopted by the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) and the State legislature

since EPA approval of the interim CBG

program in 1998.

ADEQ submitted the changes to its

CBG program to EPA for approval into

the SIP in five separate SIP submittals:

SIP Revision, Arizona Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Permanent Rules-Maricopa

County Ozone Nonattainment Area,

February 1999 ("CBG Permanent

Rules"), State Implementation Plan

Revision for the Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Program in the Maricopa

County Ozone Nonattainment Area,

March 2001 ("Summertime Minimum

Oxygen Content Removal"), Arizona

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Rule to Revise

the State Implementation Plan for the

Maricopa County Carbon Monoxide,

Ozone, and PMIO Nonattainment Areas,

August 2001 ("CBG Wintertime Rules"),

Supplement to Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Program State Implementation

Plan Revision, September 2001

("Technical Supplement") and

Supplement to Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Program State Implementation

Plan Revision, January 2004 ("Statutory

Supplement").' The key changes from

the interim CBG program approved into

the SIP in 1998 are described below.

Since 1997, ADEQ has adopted

several amendments to its CBG rule in

order to make it a permanent rule and

to reflect changes made by the State

legislature to the fuel provisions of the

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). Most of

these changes involve the removal of

SIP-approved requirements and options.

The "CBG Permanent Rules" include

the following key changes from the

interim rules currently approved in the

SIP:

* The standards for Type 3 gasoline

(modeled after Federal Phase 1

reformulated gasoline [RFG]), which

was only available as an option in 1998,

have been removed along with

references to this fuel option. 2

* Summertime minimum oxygen

content standards for Type 1 gasoline

(modeled after Federal Phase 2 RFG)

have been removed by specifying a

0.0% minimum oxygen content for

April 1 through November 1 in Table 1

of the rule.3

* The option of supplying Type 1 fuel

during the winter fuel season

(November 2 through March 31) has

been removed by including wintertime

fuel specifications that limit suppliers to

Type 2 gasoline (modeled after

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

Phase 2) beginning in 2000. With this

change, requirements for wintertime

NOx surveys have also been removed

because Type 2 gasoline does not

include a NOx performance standard.

* The option to provide non-ethanol

oxygenated fuel during the winter has

been removed by amending the

wintertime oxygen content provisions to

require fuel containing 10% ethanol,

unless the use of a non-ethanol

oxygenate is approved by the Director of

ADEQ.4

'In accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B), these

SIP submittals were deemed complete by operation

of law six months after submittal.

2 This change was included in ADEQ's February

1999 "CBG Permanent Rules" submittal and reflects

changes to the Arizona Revised Statutes by HB

2307.

3 For additional information, see ADEQ's March

2001 "Summertime Minimum Oxygen Content

Removal" submittal. These changes reflect

amendments to the Arizona Revised Statutes by SB

1504.

4 This change was also included in ADEQ's

August 2001 "CBG Wintertime Rules" submittal

* NOx performance standards for

Type 1 gasoline and summer survey

requirements have been amended to

conform with changes made by EPA to

the Federal RFG regulations in

December 1997 (62 FR 68196). 5

* The area subject to the program has

been redefined to include all of

Maricopa County as well as some

western portions of Pinal County and a

small part of southern Yavapai County. 6

A more complete description of

Arizona's submittals and the rationale

for our approval are presented in the

notice of proposed rulemaking (68 FR

55920, Sept. 29, 2003), and associated

Technical Support Document (available

at www.epa.gov/region09/air!

phoenixcbg/).

II. Public Comments on the Proposed

Action

We received two comment letters on

the September 29, 2003, proposal. The

first, from the Western States Petroleum

Association (WSPA), strongly supported

the proposed SIP approval. The second,

from the Arizona Center for Law in the

Public Interest (ACLPI), raised concerns

regarding the impact on ambient ozone

concentrations. ACLPI's comments are

addressed below.

In addition to these comments, we

received e-mails submitted prior to

publication of the proposal in the

Federal Register, apparently reacting to

news stories about the CBG program and

MTBE. While these e-mails do not

appear to address our proposed action

and therefore do not appear to be

intended as comments, we discuss them

below to address potential confusion

over the nature of today's action.

ACLPI Comments

Comment: ACLPI suggests EPA's

finding under CAA section 110(l)-that

the CBG program revisions will not

interfere with attainment and reasonable

further progress-is not sufficiently

definitive. Specifically, ACLPI notes

that, "EPA acknowledges that this

removal [of the summertime minimum

oxygen content requirement] 'could

result in increases in VOC and CO

emissions and a decrease in NOx

emissions' all of which would have the

effect of increasing ozone." ACLPI

argues that the basis for EPA's finding

is the unsupported assumption that

implementing changes to the Arizona Revised

Statutes by HB 2347.

5 See ADEQ's August 2001 "CBG Wintertime

Rules" submittal. 6 The definition of the covered area has been

changed in several statutory and regulatory

revisions. The final definition submitted for EPA

approval is described in ADEQ's August 2001 "CBG

Wintertime Rules" submittal and reflects statutory

changes made by HB 2189.

10162

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 10162 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 43/Thursday, March 4, 2004/Rules and Regulations

oxygen content will not affect emissions

from newer vehicles and therefore the

projected emissions changes are "relatively small" and are more than

offset by Phoenix's general downward

trend in ambient ozone concentrations

from 1996 to 2002.

Response: We concluded in our

proposal that the removal of the two

percent minimum oxygen requirement

for summertime CBG is not a relaxation

of the SIP because the SIP-approved

regulations already allowed the use of

non-oxygenated CBG (CBG Type 2

produced under the averaging option)

during the summer control period.

Thus, the fuel options allowed under

the revised State rules will be no less

stringent than those allowed under the

current SIP. This side-by-side

comparison of regulatory requirements

is appropriate for purposes of satisfying

CAA section 110(1) in areas meeting the

NAAQS. See Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d

1146, 1160 n. 11 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting "no relaxation" test would "clearly be

appropriate in areas that achieved

attainment under preexisting rules").

We nonetheless went further in

working with ADEQ to assess the

changes in emissions and ozone

concentrations likely to occur as a result

of this change to the CBG program.

ACLPI notes our preliminary conclusion

that small emissions increases might not

be a concern given the declining ozone

concentrations in the area. As noted

above, this preliminary assessment was

not the basis for our 110(1)

determination. Nor was it the end of our

analysis.

To confirm this preliminary

conclusion we conducted detailed

modeling to predict not only how

emissions might change but what these

emission changes would mean for ozone

concentrations. First, we looked at how

historical ozone concentrations would

have been affected by the potential fuel

changes. Our modeling showed that the

new fuel, if used in place of the baseline

fuel, would have resulted in a four

percent decrease in the ozone design

value from the 1999 baseline year.

Second, to evaluate future ozone

concentrations, we conducted a

qualitative analysis to predict likely

trends in emissions and concentrations.

We explained that with newer vehicles,

the effect of gasoline oxygen content on

vehicle emissions is likely to diminish,

and any small emissions changes will be

overwhelmed by emission reductions

achieved by new engine controls.

Between these two findings, we

concluded that the fuel provided to the

area will be better for ozone

concentrations than the fuel used in the

area at the time of attainment and that

emissions from vehicles will continue to

decline into the future.

ACLPI does not acknowledge the

analysis provided. Instead, ACLPI

points to our note that there is not

enough data to conclude that gasoline

oxygen content will affect emissions

from the newest generation of vehicles.

ACLPI implies that we therefore do not

know how fuel changes will affect

emissions in the future.

While our models for estimating

vehicle emissions do not yet include

data for the newest generation of

vehicles, we know how gasoline oxygen

content affects older vehicles and we

know that as the overall fleet of vehicles

changes, the effect of oxygen content

diminishes. 7 In addition, we know that

as the fleet changes to include more

newer vehicles, engine technologies will

result in significant emission reductions

that overwhelm this diminishing effect

from gasoline oxygen content. Thus,

even though we cannot model the

specific effect of oxygen content on

newer vehicles, it is reasonable to

conclude that emissions will continue

to improve with changes to the fleet.

Comment. ACLPI also claims that it is

anticipated that Phoenix will violate the

new 8-hour ozone standard and

therefore objects to EPA's failure to

analyze the potential impact on 8-hour

ozone concentrations.

Response. While we did not conduct

a separate analysis for 8-hour ozone

concentrations, we did explain that the

analysis described above should ensure

that the revisions to the fuel program

will not interfere with 8-hour ozone

attainment. Modeling showed that the

new fuels likely to be provided to the

area will result in a decrease in peak

ozone concentrations as compared to

the fuel provided in 1999. In addition,

motor vehicle emissions will continue

to decline as improvements in engine

technologies will overwhelm the

diminishing effect of gasoline oxygen

content on these emissions.

Related E-mails Submitted to EPA

We received four e-mails, all

submitted before the September 29

publication of the proposed action-one

on September 8, one on September 15

7 The benefit of adding oxygen to gasoline is to

"lean out" chemically an engine that is running

rich (i.e., too much fuel, not enough air (oxygen)),

so that complete combustion occurs (i.e., the

additional air/oxygen results in CO being converted to C0 2). Newer vehicles, however, include

sophisticated feedback controls, which enable these

vehicles to maintain air/fuel ratios within tight

parameters. These ratios are maintained with or without the addition of oxygen to gasoline. As a result, the benefits of gasoline oxygenates will

decline as these feedback controls improve in newer vehicles.

and two from the same person on

September 23. The first two of these emails encouraged ADEQ to move away

from using MTBE as an oxygenate. The

final two raised questions about how

emission reductions would be achieved

if the area no longer had a CBG program

with MTBE.

These e-mails suggest some confusion

regarding the nature of the action being

taken by ADEQ and EPA. We therefore

felt it important to reiterate that our

action does not ban MTBE from Arizona

summertime gasoline. The revisions to

the CBG program remove the minimum

summertime oxygen content

requirement, but do not ban the use of

MTBE or any other oxygenate during the

summer. Our approval of these revisions

likewise, does not preclude the use of

MTBE.

With this in mind, we evaluated the

fuel formulations refiners are likely to

supply the area. We concluded approval

of these CBG program revisions may

result in a mixture of MTBE-oxygenated

CBG and non-oxygenated CBG (i.e.,

ethanol-oxygenated fuel appears

unlikely). The cheapest fuel to produce

will likely be non-oxygenated Type 1

CBG. We used these likely fuels to

evaluate air quality impacts and

concluded these changes will not

adversely affect air quality in the area.

III. Final Action

In today's action, we are finding that

the Arizona CBG program implemented

in the Maricopa County area meets CAA

and EPA requirements for a state fuels

program. In addition, under CAA

section 110(1), we are finding that the

SIP revisions submitted by ADEQ do not

interfere with any applicable

requirements for CO, ozone, and PM-10

attainment and reasonable further

progress (RFP) or any other

requirements of the CAA applicable to

the Phoenix area. The basis for these

findings is discussed in the proposal for

today's action. See 68 FR 55920.

We have evaluated the submitted SIP

revisions and have determined that they

are consistent with the CAA and EPA

regulations. Therefore, we are approving

the Arizona CBG program into the

Arizona SIP under section 110(k)(3) of

the CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and part D to address

ozone, CO and PM-10 nonattainment in

the Maricopa County area.

Specifically, we are approving the

following elements of the CBG program:

Arizona Administrative Code (AAC)

R20-2-701,R20-2-716,R20-2-750

through 762, and title 20, chap. 2, art.

7, Tables 1 and 2 (March 31, 2001); and

Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§ 49-

541(1)(a), (b), and (c) (as codified on

10163

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 10163 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 43/Thursday, March 4, 2004/Rules and Regulations

August 9, 2001), 41-2124 (as codified

on April 28, 2000), 41-2123 (as codified

on August 6, 1999), 41-2113(B)(4) (as

codified on August 21, 1998), 41-2115

(as codified on July 18, 2000), and 41-

2066(A)(2) (as codified on April 20,

2001).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to a state implementation plan

shall be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a "significant regulatory action" and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. For

this reason, this action is also not

subject to Executive Order 13211,

"Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May

22, 2001). This action merely approves

State law as meeting Federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

State law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this

rule approves pre-existing requirements

under State law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by State law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal

implications because it will not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This

action also does not have federalism

implications because it does not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely

approves a State rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not economically

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 3, 2004.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See CAA

section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 26, 2004.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

* Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D-Arizona

* 2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(112) and (c)(113)

to read as follows:

§52.120 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(112) Revised regulations were

submitted on August 15, 2001, by the

Governor's designee as part of the

submittal entitled Arizona Cleaner

Burning Gasoline Rule to Revise the

State Implementation Plan for the

Maricopa County Carbon Monoxide,

Ozone, and PMIO Nonattainment Areas.

The incorporated materials from this

submittal supercede those included in

the submittals entitled SIP Revision,

Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline

Permanent Rules-Maricopa County

Ozone Nonattainment Area, submitted

on February 24, 1999, and State

Implementation Plan Revision for the

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program in

the Maricopa County Ozone

Nonattainment Area, submitted on

March 29, 2001.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Administrative Code.

(1) AAC R20-2-701, R20-2-716, R20-

2-750 through 762, and Title 20, Chap.

2, Art. 7, Tables 1 and 2 (March 31,

2001).

(113) Revised statutes were submitted

on January 22, 2004, by the Governor's

designee as part of the submittal entitled

Supplement to Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Program State Implementation

Plan Revision. The incorporated

materials from this submittal supercede

those included in the submittals entitled

SIP Revision, Arizona Cleaner Burning

Gasoline Permanent Rules-Maricopa

County Ozone Nonattainment Area,

submitted on February 24, 1999, State

Implementation Plan Revision for the

10164

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 10164 2004
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 43/Thursday, March 4, 2004/Rules and Regulations

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Program in

the Maricopa County Ozone

Nonattainment Area, submitted on

March 29, 2001, and Arizona Cleaner

Burning Gasoline Rule to Revise the

State Implementation Plan for the

Maricopa County Carbon Monoxide,

Ozone, and PMIO Nonattainment Areas,

submitted August 15, 2001.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Revised Statutes.

(1) ARS sections 49-541(1)(a), (b), and

(c), 41-2124, 41-2123, 41-2113(B)(4),

41-2115, and 41-2066(A)(2) (as codified

on March 31, 2001).

[FR Doc. 04-4814 Filed 3-3-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[PAl 90-7008a; FRL-7631-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Air Quality Plans for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

Control of Emissions from Existing

Small Municipal Waste Combustion

Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve a section 111(d)/129

negative declaration submitted by the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection (PADEP). The

negative declaration certifies that small

municipal waste combustion (MWC)

units, subject to the requirements of

sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (the Act), do not exist within its air

pollution control jurisdiction, excluding

the jurisdictions of the Health

Departments (air pollution control

agencies) in Allegheny and Philadelphia

counties.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 3,

2004 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse written comment by

April 5, 2004. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted either by mail or

electronically. Written comments

should be mailed to Walter Wilkie,

Chief, Air Quality Analysis Branch,

Mailcode 3AP22, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. Electronic comments should be

sent either to wilkie.walter@epa.gov or

to http://www.regulations.gov, which is

an alternative method for submitting

electronic comments to EPA. To submit

comments, please follow the detailed

instructions described in part II of the

Supplementary Information section.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James B. Topsale, P.E., at (215) 814-

2190, or by e-mail at

topsale.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Act

requires states to submit plans to control

certain pollutants (designated

pollutants) at existing solid waste

combustor facilities (designated

facilities) whenever standards of

performance have been established

under section 111(b) for new sources of

the same type, and EPA has established

emission guidelines (EG) for such

existing sources. A designated pollutant

is any pollutant for which no air quality

criteria have been issued, and which is

not included on a list published under

section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of

the CAA, but emissions of which are

subject to a standard of performance for

new stationary sources. However,

section 129 of the Act, also requires EPA

to promulgate EG for MWC units that

emit a mixture of air pollutants. These

pollutants include organics (i.e.,

dioxins/furans), carbon monoxide,

metals (cadmium, lead, mercury), acid

gases (hydrogen chloride, sulfur

dioxide, and nitrogen oxides) and

particulate matter (including opacity).

On December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76350

and 76378), EPA promulgated small

municipal waste combustion unit new

source performance standards, 40 CFR

part 60, subpart AAAA, and emission

guidelines (EG), subpart BBBB,

respectively. The designated facility to

which the EG apply is each existing

small MWC unit that has a design

combustion capacity of 35 to 250 tons

per day of municipal solid waste (MSW)

and commenced construction on or

before August 30, 1999.

Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60

establishes procedures to be followed

and requirements to be met in the

development and submission of state

plans for controlling designated

pollutants. Also, 40 CFR part 62

provides the procedural framework for

the submission of these plans. When

designated facilities are located in a

state, the state must then develop and

submit a plan for the control of the

designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR

60.23(b) and 62.06 provide that if there

are no existing sources of the designated

pollutant in the state, the state may

submit a letter of certification to that

effect (i.e., negative declaration) in lieu

of a plan. The negative declaration

exempts the state from the requirements

of subpart B that require the submittal

of a 111(d)/129 plan.

The Harrisburg Materials, Energy,

Recycling and Resource Recovery

Facility was the only known designated

facility (based on the derated capacity of

its two combustion units) subject to the

EG. However, on June 18, 2003, the City

of Harrisburg permanently ceased

operation of its two small MWC units.

Permanent closure of the units was

confirmed by PADEP staff during

inspections of the facility on August 4

and 11, 2003.

II. Final EPA Action

The PADEP has determined that there

are no designated facilities, subject to

the small MWC unit EG requirements,

in its air pollution control jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the PADEP Bureau of Air

Quality Director has submitted to EPA

a negative declaration letter certifying

this fact. The submittal date of the letter

is October 30, 2003.

Therefore, EPA is amending part 62 to

reflect the receipt of the negative

declaration letter from the PADEP.

Amendments are being made to 40 CFR

part 62, subpart NN (Pennsylvania).

These amendments exclude the local

Pennsylvania air pollution control

jurisdictions that submitted their own

approvable negative declarationsAllegheny and Philadelphia (City)

counties.

After publication of this Federal

Register notice, if a small MWC unit is

later found within jurisdiction of the

PADEP, then that unit will become

subject to the requirements of the

Federal small MWC 111(d)/129 plan, as

promulgated on January 31, 2003 (68 FR

5144).

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comment. However, in the "Proposed

Rules" section of today's Federal

Register, EPA is publishing a separate

document that will serve as the proposal

to approve the section 111(d)/129

negative declaration if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be

effective on May 3, 2004 without further

10165

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 10165 2004