# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 64 Fed. Reg. 19916 1999
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon May 24 17:54:43 2010
-- 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. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

ListofSubjects in 40 CFR Part52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 12, 1999. William J.Muszynski,
ActingRegional Administrator, Region2.
Part 52, chapter I, title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:


### PART52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. §52.1580 [Amended]

2. Section 52.1580 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b). 

### §52.1581 [Removed and Reserved]

3. Section 52.1581 isremoved and reserved.

4. Section 52.1582 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1) and byrevising paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) and adding

new paragraph (g) as follows: 

### §52.1582 Controlstrategyand regulations:Ozone (volatileorganic substances) and carbon monoxide.

* * * * *

(d)(1) * * * Revisions to the 1990 base year emission inventory dated February 10, 1999 for the New York/ Northern New Jersey/Long Island and Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton nonattainment areas ofNew Jersey have been approved.

* * * * *

(3) The 1996 and 1999 ozone projection year emission inventories included in New Jersey's July 30, 1998 addendum and February 10, 1999 State Implementation Plan revision for the New York/Northern New Jersey/Long Island and Philadelphia/Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment areas have been approved.

(4) The conformity emission budgets for the McGuire Air Force Base included in New Jersey's December 31, 1996 State Implementation Plan revision have been approved. The 1999 conformity emission budgets for the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission included in New Jersey's July 30, 1998 addendum and the February 10, 1999 State Implementation Plan revision have been approved.
* * * * *

(g)The 15Percent Rate ofProgress (ROP) Plans and the recalculation ofthe 9 Percent ROP Plans included in the July 30, 1998 addendum and the February 10, 1999 State Implementation Plan revision for the New York/ Northern New Jersey/Long Island and Philadelphia/Wilmington/Trenton nonattainment areas have been approved. [FR Doc. 99 9872Filed 4 22 99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [CA126-0129a; FRL-6233-1] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation PlansforArizona and California; General Conformity Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.


### SUMMARY: This action approves various revisions to State Implementation Plans (SIP) which contain regulations for implementing and enforcing the general conformity rules which theEPA promulgated on November 30, 1993. EPA is approving SIP revisions which contain general conformity rules for the Arizona SIP and the California SIP for the following California Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD): El Dorado County APCD, Great Basin Unified APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, Imperial County APCD, Bay Area AQMD, San Diego County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Ventura County APCD, Mojave Desert AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

The approval ofthese general conformity rules into the SIP will result in the SIP criteria and procedures governing general conformity determinations instead ofthe Federal rules at40 CFRPart 93, Subpart Bfor those actions under thejurisdiction of the SIPs. Federal actions by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration (underTitle 23 U.S.C. or theFederal Transit Act) are covered by the transportation conformity rules under 40 CFRPart 51, Subpart T-Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (and 40 CFRPart 93, Subpart A) and are not affected bythis action.

EPA approves these SIP revisions under sections l10(k) and 176(c) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). A more detailed discussion ofthis action is provided below and in the support documentation. DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 1999 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 24, 1999. IfEPAreceives such comment, it willpublish atimely withdrawal in the FederalRegisterinforming the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to:Doris Lo, Planning Office [AIR2], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies ofthe rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report are available for public inspection atEPA's Region 9 office during normal business hours. Copies ofthe submitted rule revisions

are also available for inspection at the following locations:
Arizona Department ofEnvironmental

Quality, 3033North Central Avenue, Phoenix,Arizona 85012 California AirResources Board, 2020 L

Street,P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, California 95812 El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane

Court,Placerville, California 95667 GreatBasin Unified APCD, 157Short Street,

Suite#6, Bishop, California 93514 Monterey Bay Unified APCD, 24580 Silver

Cloud Court, Monterey, California 93940 SanJoaquin ValleyUnified APCD, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, California 93721 SantaBarbara County APCD, 26 Castillian

Drive,B 23, Goleta, California 93117 South CoastAQMD, 21865E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California 91765 4182 Feather River AQMD,463 PaloraAvenue,

Yuba City, California 95991 4711 Placer CountyAPCD, 11464B Avenue,

Auburn, California 95603 Sacramento Metro AQMD, 8411 Jackson

Road, Sacramento, California 95826 BayArea AQMD,939 EllisStreet, San

Francisco, California 94109 Imperial County APCD, 150 South Ninth

Street,El Centro, California 92243 2850 SanDiego County,APCD 9150 Chesapeake

Drive, San Diego, California 92123 1096 ButteCounty AQMD,9287 Midway, Suite

IA, Durham, California 95938 Ventura County APCD, 669 County Square

Drive, Ventura, California 93003 Mojave Desert AQMD, 15428 CivicDrive,

Suite 200Victorville, California 92392 2383 

### 19916

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 19916 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

Yolo-Solano AQMD, 1947 Galileo Court,

Suite 103, Davis, California 95616

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), Air Division, U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415)744-1287.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.Background

Section 176(c) ofthe Actrequires that allFederal actions conform to an applicable implementation plan. Conformity is defined in section 176(c) ofthe Act as conformity to the SIP's purpose ofeliminating orreducing the severity and number ofviolations ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and that such activities will not: (1) Cause or contribute to any
new violation ofany standard in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity ofany existing violation ofany standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment ofany standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

As required by section 176(c) ofthe Act, EPApublished the final general conformity rules implementing this statutory section on November 30, 1993 (58FR 63214), which are codified under 40 CFRpart 51 subpart W-Determining Conformity ofGeneral Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. Among other things, EPA's general conformity rules require the States and local air quality agencies (where applicable) to adopt and submit

ageneral conformity SIP revision to EPA which are "no less stringent than the requirements" ofSubpart W (40CFR Part 51.851(b)). See also,§ 176(c)(4)(C).

The governors ofArizona and California submitted SIP revisions in accordance with 40 CFRpart 51, subpart W that contained general conformity rules for the following areas on the following dates summarized below.
ArizonaRuleandSubmittalDate

-Arizona Administrative Code Title 18,

Chapter 2, Article 14, Conformity Determinations,3/3/95 California DistrictRulesandSubmittal Dates

-El Dorado County APCD, Rule 502

General Conformity Rule, 11/30/94 -Great Basin Unified APCD, Reg XIII

Conformity ofGeneral Federal Actions to SIPs, 11/30/94 -Monterey Bay Unified APCD,

(Appendix G) General Conformity, 11/ 30/94 -San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Rule 9110 General Conformity, 11/30/ 94 -Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 702

General Conformity, 11/30/94 -South Coast AQMD, Rule 1901

General Conformity, 11/30/94 -Feather River AQMD, Rule 10.4 General Conformity, 12/22/94 -Placer County APCD, Rule 508 General Conformity, 12/22/94 -Sacramento Metro AQMD, Rule 104

General Conformity, 12/22/94 -Bay Area AQMD, Federal General Conformity Regulation, 12/28/94 -Imperial County APCD, Rule 925 General Conformity, 2/24/95 -San Diego County APCD, Rule 1501

General Conformity, 5/24/95 -Butte County AQMD, Rule 1103 General Conformity, 5/25/95 -Ventura County APCD, Rule 220 General Conformity, 8/10/95 -Mojave Desert AQMD, Rule 2002- General Federal Actions Conformity, 

### 5/10/96 -Yolo-Solano AQMD, Rule 10.3 General Conformity, 12/3/98


### II. EPA Evaluation andFinal Action

EPA compared each ofthe submitted rules to theFederally promulgated rule
at40 CFRpart 51. EPAbelieves that all ofthe submitted SIP revisions are consistent with 40 CFR 51.851(b) and

areno less stringentthan the Federal rule. EPAis thus approving the above rules into the SIP under 110(k) and 176(c) ofthe CAA. A more detailed discussion ofEPA's evaluation can be found in the Support Documentation available at the EPA Region 9 Office.

EPA is publishing these rules without prior proposal because the EPA views this as anoncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section ofthis Federal Register publication, EPA ispublishing a separate document that will serve as theproposal to approve the SIP revisions should adverse comments be filed. These rules will be effective June 22, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 24, 

### 1999.

Ifthe EPA receives any adverse comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal ofthis direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. Allpublic comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this rule.Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. Ifno such
comments arereceived, the public is advised that this rule will be effective

on June 22, 1999 and no further action willbe taken on the proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.


### III.Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB)has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office ofManagement and Budget a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature oftheir
concerns, copies ofany written communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives ofState, local and tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timelyinput in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates." Today'srule does not create a mandate

on State, local ortribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, therequirements of section 1(a) ofE.O. 12875 do not apply
to this rule.

C.Executive Order13045

Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 

## 19917

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 19917 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

environmental health or safety risk that EPA hasreason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why theplanned regulation is preferable to otherpotentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D.Executive Order13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue aregulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. IfEPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section ofthe preamble to the rule, a description ofthe extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives ofaffected tribal governments, a summary ofthe nature oftheir concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives ofIndian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities." Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities ofIndian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 3(b) ofE.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E.RegulatoryFlexibilityAct

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that therule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, smallnot-for-profit enterprises, and small governmentaljurisdictions. This final rule will nothave a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Moreover, due
to the nature oftheFederal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation offlexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. UnfundedMandates

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPAmust prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of$100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives oftherule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of$100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G.Submission to Congressandthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., 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 arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule,to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing thisrule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register.This rule is not a "major" rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions forJudicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by June 22, 1999. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicialreview 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 section 307(b)(2).)
ListofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, General conformity, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compound.

Note:Incorporation by reference ofthe StateImplementation Plan for the State of California and the State ofArizonawas approved by theDirector oftheFederal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated:January 29, 1999. LauraYoshii, ActingRegionalAdministrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Subpart D-Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(92) to read as follows:
§52.120 Identificationof plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (92) Plan revisions were submitted on March 3, 1995, by the Governor's designee.

(A) Arizona State Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14, adopted on December 23, 1994.

* * * * * 

## 19918

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 19918 1999

### Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 78/Friday, April 23, 1999/Rules and Regulations

Subpart F-California

3. Section 52.220 is amended by addingparagraphs (c)(205)introductory text, (c)(205)(i) introductory text, (c)(205)(i)(B)(2), (c)(207)(i)(B)(5), (c)(207)(i)(E)(2), (c)(207)(i)(F), (c)(207)(i)(G),(c)(207)(i)(H), (c)(207)(i)(I), (c)(210)(i)(F), (c)(210)(i)(G), (c)(210)(i)(H), (c)(215)(i)(E), (c)(220)(i)(D),(c)(221)(i)(B), (c)(224)(i)(B)(2), (c)(231)(i)(C) and (c)(259)to read as follows: §52.220 Identificationofplan.

* * * * *



### (c) * * * 

### (205) New and amended plans forthe following APCDs were submitted on December 28, 1994,by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation byreference.

* * * * *



### (B) * * * 

### (2) Federal General Conformity Regulation, adopted on September 7, 1994.

* * * * *



### (207) * * * 

### (i) * * * 

### (B) *** 

### (5) Rule502, adopted on November 8, 1994.

* * * * *



### (E) * * * 

### (2) Appendix GGeneral Conformity, adopted on October 19, 1994.

(F) Great Basin Unified AirPollution Control District.

(1)Regulation XIII, adopted on October 5, 1994.

(G) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1)Rule9110, adopted on October 20, 1994.

(H) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

(1)Rule702, adopted on October 20, 1994.

(I) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 1901, adopted on September 9, 1994.

* * * * *



### (210) * * * 

### (i) * * * 

### (F) Feather RiverAir Quality Management District.

(1)Rule 10.4, adopted on November 7, 1994.

(G)Placer County AirPollution Control District.

(1)Rule508, adopted on November 3, 1994.

(H) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1)Rule 104, adopted on November 3, 1994.

* * * * * 

### (215) * * * 

### (i) * * * (E)Imperial County Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 925, adopted on November 29, 1994.
* * * * *

(220) * * * (i) * * * (D) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 1501, adopted on March 7, 1995.
* * * * *

(221) * * * (i) * * * (B) Butte County Air Quality Management District. (1) Rule 1103, adopted on February 16, 1995.
* * * * *

(224) * * * (i) * * * (B)* * * (2) Rule 220, adopted on May 9, 1995.
* * * * *

(231) * * * (i) * * * (C) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District. (1) Rule 2002, adopted on October 26, 1994.
* * * * *

(259) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted

on December 3, 1998, bythe Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. (1) Rule 10.3, adopted on February 8, 1995.
* * * * * [FR Doc. 99 9996Filed 4 22 99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62 [MD056-3022a; FRL-6330-7] Approval and Promulgation ofState Air QualityPlans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants, Maryland; ControlofEmissions From Large MunicipalWaste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the municipal waste combustor (MWC) 111(d)/129 plan submitted bythe Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department oftheEnvironment, on December 4, 1997, and as amended on October 7, 1998. The plan was submitted to fulfill requirements ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA), and EPA emission guidelines (EG)applicable to existing MWC facilities with a unit combustor capacity ofmore than 250 tons per day (TPD)of municipal solid waste. An existing MWC unit is defined as one for which construction has commenced on or before September 20, 1994.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on June 22, 1999, without further notice, unless the EPAreceives adverse
comment by May 24, 1999. Ifadverse
comment is received, the EPA will publish atimely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the FederalRegister and inform the public that the rule will
nottake effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Makeba A. Morris, Chief,Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air Protection Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and the Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department oftheEnvironment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James B. Topsale at (215) 814-2190, or by e-mail attopsale.jim@epamail.gov. While information maybe obtained via e-mail, any comments must be submitted, in writing, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section ofthis document. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 111(d) ofthe CAA requires that "designated" pollutants controlled under standards ofperformance for new stationary sources by section 111(b) of the CAA must also be controlled at existing sources in the same source category. Also, section 129 ofthe CAA specifically addresses solid waste combustion. Itrequires EPA to establish emission guidelines (EG)for MWC units and requires states to develop state plans forimplementing thepromulgated EG. The part 60, subpart Cb, EG for MWC units differ from other EG adopted in the pastbecause the rule addresses both sections 111(d) and 129 CAA requirements. Section 129 requirements override certain related aspects ofsection 111(d). 

### 19919

HeinOnline -- 64 Fed. Reg. 19919 1999