Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 63021

by the IB for that purpose. These forms 

may be downloaded from the IB Web 

site, http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/.

Please note that the IB will not process 

paper submissions that are not prepared 

using IB forms. 

Applicants Should Mail Madrid 

Submissions to a Designated Address 

Pursuant to 37 CFR 2.190(a), all 

trademark-related documents submitted 

on paper must be mailed to the USPTO 

address at 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, 

Virginia 22202–3514. However, the 

notice of October 24, 2003, waived that 

rule with respect to international 

applications, subsequent designations, 

and responses to notices of irregularities 

that are filed on paper. The notice 

further provided that all Madrid 

submissions made on paper should be 

mailed to the following address: 

Commissioner for Trademarks, PO Box 

16471, Arlington, Virginia 22215–1471, 

Attn: MPU. 

The limited waiver of 37 CFR 2.190(a) 

remains in effect. However, the 

following is noted: pursuant to the 

notice of October 24, 2003, the waiver, 

and the instruction to utilize the aboveidentified address, applied to Madrid 

submissions made on paper. Pursuant to 

the present notice, all Madrid 

submissions must be made on paper. 

Hence, the provisions of the notice of 

October 24, 2003, regarding the USPTO 

mailing address apply to all Madrid 

submissions. 

Please note that any trademark-related 

correspondence other than international 

applications, subsequent designations, 

and responses to irregularity notices 

that is sent to the above-identified 

address will not be accepted, and will 

be returned to the sender. 

If a submission mailed to the above 

address pursuant to this notice and to 

the Notice of October 24, 2003, is 

delivered by the Express Mail service of 

the United States Postal Service, the 

USPTO will deem that the date of 

receipt of the submission in the USPTO 

is the date the submission was 

deposited as Express Mail, provided 

that the submitter complies with the 

requirements set forth in 37 CFR 2.198.

Dated: October 31, 2003. 

James E. Rogan, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 03–27917 Filed 11–6–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[FRL–7583–7, E–Docket ID No. A–2001–0004 

(Legacy Docket ID No. A–90–37)] 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final action on 

reconsideration; amendment to final 

rules. 

SUMMARY: On December 31, 2002 and 

March 10, 2003, EPA revised regulations 

governing the major New Source Review 

(NSR) programs mandated by parts C 

and D of title I of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). Following these actions, 

the Administrator received a number of 

petitions for reconsideration. On July 

30, 2003, EPA announced its 

reconsideration of certain issues arising 

from the final rules of December 31, 

2002. We (the EPA) requested public 

comment on six issues for which we 

granted reconsideration. As a result of 

this reconsideration process, we have 

concluded that two clarifications to the 

underlying rules are warranted, which 

are: To include a definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ and to clarify that 

the plantwide applicability limitation 

(PAL) baseline calculation procedures 

for newly constructed units do not 

apply to modified units. With respect to 

all other issues raised by the petitioners, 

we deny the requests for 

reconsideration.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final action is 

effective on January 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–90–

37 (E–Docket ID No. OAR–2001–0004), 

containing supporting information used 

to develop the proposed rule and the 

final rule, is available for public 

inspection and copying between 8 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday 

(except government holidays) at the Air 

and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (6102T), Room B108, EPA West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

(202) 566–1742, fax (202) 566–1741. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying docket materials. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this final action will 

also be available on the WWW. 

Following signature, a copy of the 

notice will be posted on the EPA’s NSR 

page: http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lynn Hutchinson, Information Transfer 

and Program Integration Division 

(C339–03), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–

5795, or electronic mail at 

hutchinson.lynn@epa.gov, or Ms. Janet 

McDonald, at the same street address, 

telephone (919) 541–1450, or electronic 

mail at mcdonald.janet@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What Are the Regulated Entities? 

Entities potentially affected by the 

subject rule for today’s action include 

sources in all industry groups. The 

majority of sources potentially affected 

are expected to be in the following 

groups.

Industry Group SIC a NAICSb

Electric Services ............................................ 491 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122

Petroleum Refining ........................................ 291 324110

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals ...................... 281 325181, 325120, 325131, 325182, 211112, 325998, 331311, 325188

Industrial Organic Chemicals ......................... 286 325110, 325132, 325192, 325188, 325193, 325120, 325199

Miscellaneous Chemical Products ................. 289 325520, 325920, 325910, 325182, 325510

Natural Gas Liquids ....................................... 132 211112

Natural Gas Transport ................................... 492 486210, 221210

Pulp and Paper Mills ..................................... 261 322110, 322121, 322122, 322130

Paper Mills ..................................................... 262 322121, 322122

Automobile Manufacturing ............................. 371 336111, 336112, 336211, 336992, 336322, 336312, 336330, 336340, 336350, 336399, 

336212, 336213

Pharmaceuticals ............................................ 283 325411, 325412, 325413, 325414

aStandard Industrial Classification 

b North American Industry Classification System. Entities potentially affected by the subject rule for today’s action also include State, local, and 

tribal governments. 

63022 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

1The December 31, 2002 final rules did not act 

on several issues proposed in 1996. We intend to 

act on some or all issues from the 1996 proposal 

in subsequent Federal Register notices.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under E–Docket ID No. OAR–2001–0004 

(Legacy Docket ID No. A–90–37). The 

official public docket consists of the 

documents specifically referenced in 

this action, any public comments 

received, and other information related 

to this action. Although a part of the 

official docket, the public docket does 

not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

The official public docket is the 

collection of materials that is available 

for public viewing at the EPA Docket 

Center (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

B108, Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, 

DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the Federal Register listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

An electronic version of a portion of 

the public docket is available through 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, EPA Dockets. 

Interested persons may use EPA Dockets 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 

submit or view public comments, access 

the index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the 

appropriate docket identification 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA’s 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 

available docket materials will be made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. When a document is selected 

from the index list in EPA Dockets, the 

system will identify whether the 

document is available for viewing in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facility identified in section I.B.1. EPA 

intends to work towards providing 

electronic access to all of the publicly 

available docket materials through 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

For additional information about 

EPA’s electronic public docket visit EPA 

Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 

31, 2002.

C. Where Can I Obtain Additional 

Information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

WWW. Following signature, a copy of 

the notice will be posted on the EPA’s 

NSR page: http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

D. How Is This Preamble Organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information 

A. What are the regulated entities? 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Where can I obtain additional 

information? 

D. How is this preamble organized? 

II. Background 

III. Today’s Action 

A. Six Issues for which Reconsideration 

Was Granted 

B. Remaining Issues in Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

V. Statutory Authority 

VI. Judicial Review

II. Background 

For a brief history of the NSR 

rulemaking process that preceded 

today’s final action, see our discussion 

at 68 FR 44623 (July 30, 2003). On 

December 31, 2002, we issued a final 

rule (67 FR 80186) that revised 

regulations governing the major NSR 

programs (final rules).1 The revisions 

included five major changes to the 

major NSR program that will reduce 

burden, maximize operating flexibility, 

improve environmental quality, provide 

additional certainty, and promote 

administrative efficiency. These 

elements include baseline actual 

emissions, actual-to-projected-actual 

emissions methodology, plantwide 

applicability limitations (PALs), Clean 

Units, and pollution control projects 

(PCPs). The final rules also codified our 

longstanding policy regarding the 

calculation of baseline emissions for 

electric utility steam generating units 

(EUSGUs). In addition, the final action: 

(1) Responded to comments we received 

on a proposal to adopt a methodology, 

developed by the American Chemistry 

Council (formerly known as the 

Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(CMA)) and other industry petitioners, 

to determine whether a major stationary 

source has undertaken a major 

modification based on its potential 

emissions; and (2) included a new 

section that spells out in one place how 

a major modification is determined 

under the various major NSR 

applicability options. This topic had 

previously been addressed primarily in 

the definition section of the major NSR 

regulations. We also clarified where to 

find the provisions in the revised rules 

and codified a definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ that clarifies which 

pollutants are regulated under the Act 

for purposes of major NSR.

On February 28, 2003, we sent notice 

to affected States that, consistent with 

our proposal in 1996, we were revising 

the references to 40 CFR 52.21 in 

delegated States’ plans to reflect the 

December 31, 2002 changes in the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) (40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b) 

through (bb)). This FIP applies in any 

area that does not have an approved 

PSD program in the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), and in all 

Indian country. The notice was 

subsequently published in the Federal 

Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 

11316). 

Following publication of the 

December 31, 2002 and March 10, 2003 

Federal Register notices, and prior to 

July 2003, the Administrator received 

numerous petitions, filed pursuant to 

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 63023

2Petitions for reconsideration of the December 

31, 2002 final rule that EPA received before July 

2003 were filed by: Northeastern States (CT, ME, 

MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT); South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (CA); and 

Environmental Groups (led by NRDC, Earthjustice, 

Clean Air Task Force, and Environmental Defense). 

Additional petitioners joined existing petitions: The 

People of California and California Air Resources 

Board (joined South Coast and Northeastern States 

petitions); Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 

District (CA) (joined South Coast petition); Santa 

Barbara, Ventura, and Monterey Air Pollution 

Control Districts (CA); and Sacramento Air Quality 

Management District (CA) (joined South Coast 

petition). Petitions for reconsideration of the FIP 

rule were filed by: Delegated States (CA, CT, IL, 

MA, NJ, NY, DC, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (CA), and Santa Barbara Air 

Pollution Control District (CA)); and Environmental 

Groups (essentially the same groups that filed 

petitions to reconsider the December 31, 2002 rule). 

On July 11, 2003, we received another petition for 

reconsideration filed by Newmont USA Limited, 

dba Newmont Mining Corporation. This petition 

was subsequently joined by the National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National 

Mining Association. We are not responding to that 

petition at this time, but will do so in the near 

future.

3 In this notice, the term ‘‘petitioner’’ refers only 

to those entities that filed petitions for 

reconsideration with EPA prior to July 2003.

4Available through our NSR Web site at http://

www.epa.gov/nsr and in Docket ID No. A–90–37, 

Document IV–A–7.

requesting reconsideration of many 

aspects of the final rules.2

On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44624), we 

granted reconsideration on six issues 

raised by petitioners who had filed 

petitions prior to July 2003.3 At that 

time, we did not act on any of the 

remaining issues in those petitions. 

Instead, we indicated that we planned 

to announce our final decision on 

whether to reconsider the remaining 

petition issues no later than 90 days 

after the publication of the Federal 

Register notice.

The first of the six issues on which we 

granted reconsideration involves a 

document we released in November 

2002, entitled ‘‘Supplemental Analysis 

of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 

Final NSR Improvement Rules.’’4 Our 

purpose in granting reconsideration on 

this issue was to provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on our analysis 

and to submit any additional 

information that they believe to be 

relevant to the inquiry. The remaining 

issues for which we granted 

reconsideration involved five narrow 

aspects of the final rule as follows:

• Using potential-to-emit (PTE) to 

determine baseline actual emissions for 

an emissions unit on which actual 

construction began after the 24-month 

PAL baseline period when establishing 

a PAL; 

• Eliminating synthetic minor limits 

[(r)(4) limits] under the PAL; 

• Including a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’

requirement for triggering recordkeeping 

and reporting provisions; 

• Using the actual-to-projected-actual 

test for replacement units; and, 

• Effect of redesignation of an area 

from attainment to nonattainment on 

Clean Unit status. 

We describe these issues at 68 FR 

44624. For the reasons indicated at 68 

FR 44624, we did not grant a stay of the 

final rules pending our reconsideration 

of these issues. 

On August 14, 2003, we held a public 

hearing on the issues for which we 

granted reconsideration. Twenty-two 

individuals gave oral presentations at 

the hearing. The transcript of their 

comments is located in Docket OAR–

2001–0004 (Legacy Number A–90–37), 

which can be accessed on the internet 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

We provided a public comment 

period on the reconsideration issues 

that ended on August 29, 2003. For 

issues arising out of the August 14th 

public hearing, the comment period was 

extended until September 15, 2003. 

More than 400 written public comments 

on the reconsideration issues were 

received. The individual comment 

letters can be found in Docket OAR–

2001–0004 (Legacy Number A–90–37). 

III. Today’s Action 

At this time, we are announcing our 

final action after reconsideration of 

these six issues. We are also announcing 

our final decision on reconsideration of 

the remaining issues that were raised by 

the petitioners. Today, we are making 

available a document entitled, 

‘‘Technical Support Document for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Non-attainment New Source 

Review (NSR): Reconsideration,’’ EPA 

456/R–03–005 (Technical Support 

Document). This document contains (1) 

a summary of comments received on the 

issues for which we granted 

reconsideration and our responses to 

these comments, and (2) a summary of 

petition issues for which we are not 

granting reconsideration, and our 

rationale for denying reconsideration. 

This document is available on our Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/; and, 

through the National Technical 

Information Services, 5285 Port Royal 

Road, Springfield, VA 22161; telephone 

(800) 553–6846, e-mail http://

www.ntis.gov; and, from the US EPA, 

Library Services, MD C267–01, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–2777, e-mail 

library.rtp@epa.gov.

A. Six Issues for Which Reconsideration 

Was Granted 

We received numerous responses to 

our request for comment on the 

‘‘Supplemental Analysis of the 

Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final 

NSR Improvement Rule.’’ After carefully 

considering the information that was 

submitted, we have determined that 

none of the new information presented 

leads us to conclude that the analysis 

was incorrect or substantially flawed. 

Therefore, we are re-affirming the 

validity of the original conclusions. A 

summary of the comments received and 

our responses to these comments can be 

found in our Technical Support 

Document. 

With respect to the five remaining 

issues on which we granted 

reconsideration, we have concluded that 

two clarifications to the underlying 

rules are warranted. These changes 

relate to issues raised as a result of our 

request for comment on: (1) Whether 

replacement units should be allowed to 

use the actual-to-projected-actual 

applicability test to determine whether 

installing a replacement unit results in 

a significant emissions increase; and, (2) 

using potential-to-emit (PTE) to 

determine the baseline actual emissions 

for an emissions unit on which 

construction began after the 24-month 

baseline period when establishing a 

PAL. As explained below, while we are 

not making any changes to the general 

approach in the final rules with respect 

to these issues, we are making two 

clarifying changes to the regulations. 

First, we are adding a definition of 

replacement unit to the final rules. 

Second, we are clarifying that the 

potential-to-emit approach for 

determining baseline actual emissions 

when establishing a PAL is only 

available to emissions units that are 

added to the major stationary source 

after the 24-month baseline period, and 

is not available to emissions units that 

existed during the baseline period 

whether or not they have been modified 

since that time. 

We are not making any changes to the 

final rules with respect to eliminating 

synthetic minor limits [(r)(4) limits] 

under the PAL, the ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ requirement for triggering 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions, 

or the effect of redesignation of an area 

from attainment to nonattainment on 

Clean Unit status. Our reasons for this 

conclusion, and our response to 

significant comments received, are 

summarized in our Technical Support 

Document.

1. Replacement Units 

63024 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

We have decided to continue to allow 

the owner or operator of a major 

stationary source (you) to use the actualto-projected-actual applicability test to 

determine whether installing a 

replacement unit results in a significant 

emissions increase. However, as we 

reconsidered this issue and reviewed 

comments, we found one commenter 

that recommended that EPA include a 

definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ in the 

regulations. The commenter asked that 

this definition describe how the 

replacement unit may differ from the 

replaced unit. The commenter also 

recommended that we indicate that the 

replaced unit must be removed from the 

site or rendered permanently 

inoperable. 

We believe that the current rules, as 

supplemented by the discussion in the 

December 2002 preamble, are selfimplementing for replacement units. 

Nevertheless, we agree with the 

commenter that a definition of 

‘‘replacement unit’’ would render 

implementation easier. Thus, today we 

are adding regulatory language to 

further clarify our intentions regarding 

replacement units. Today’s action 

revises the definition of ‘‘emissions 

unit’’ to clarify that a replacement unit 

is considered an existing emissions unit 

(e.g., § 51.166(b)(7)(ii)) and therefore is 

eligible for the actual-to-projected-actual 

test for major NSR applicability 

determinations. 

In addition, today’s rule revisions add 

a definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ that 

codifies longstanding policy and 

practice. In the preamble to the 1992 

WEPCO rule, we first stated that we 

would ‘‘consider a unit to be replaced 

if it would constitute a reconstructed 

unit within the meaning of 40 CFR 

60.15,’’ which is the section of the New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

General Provisions that governs 

reconstruction. See 57 FR 32323, 

column 1. We have adopted this 

threshold in today’s rule, by defining 

‘‘replacement unit’’ to include 

reconstructed units, as well as 

emissions units that completely take the 

place of an existing emissions unit. See, 

e.g., § 51.166(b)(32)(i). 

We note that we have never 

considered ‘‘replacement units’’ to 

include replacements that significantly 

change the nature of the replaced unit; 

it is this inherent limitation that makes 

the application of the actual-toprojected-actual applicability test 

appropriate. It is reasonable to compare 

the baseline actual emissions from the 

replaced unit to the projected actual 

emissions of the replacement unit 

because the units are effectively the 

same existing emissions unit. Thus, 

consistent with the recently finalized 

equipment replacement exclusion 

provisions, the limiting principle here is 

that the replacement unit must be 

identical or functionally equivalent and 

must not change the basic design 

parameters of the affected process unit 

(e.g., for EUSGUs this might mean heat 

input and fuel consumption 

specifications). See, e.g., 

§§ 51.166(b)(32)(ii) and (iii). We also 

believe, however, that we need not and 

should not treat efficiency as a basic 

design parameter, as we do not believe 

major NSR was intended to impede 

industry in making energy and process 

efficiency improvements. We believe 

such improvements, on balance, will be 

beneficial both economically and 

environmentally. 

We also believe that it has always 

been implicit in the concept of a 

replacement unit that the replaced unit 

must cease operation. Today’s rule 

makes this principle explicit by 

requiring you to remove or permanently 

disable the replaced unit, or take a 

permit condition to permanently 

prohibit its operation. In general, if you 

bring the replaced unit back into 

operation, it must be treated as a new 

emissions unit, to which the actual-topotential emissions test applies. See, 

e.g., § 51.166(b)(32)(iv). 

Finally, today’s rule spells out that 

you cannot generate an emissions 

reduction credit from emissions 

reductions that are attributable to the 

shutdown of the replaced emissions 

unit. See, e.g., § 51.166(b)(32). This 

provision addresses concerns about the 

possible double-counting of emissions 

reductions that could otherwise occur. 

Thus, if you use the baseline actual 

emissions of the replaced unit when 

applying the actual-to-projected-actual 

emissions test to measure the emissions 

increase resulting from the replacement 

unit, you cannot subsequently take 

credit for the emissions reductions that 

occur when you shut down the replaced 

unit. However, this provision is not 

intended to prevent you from generating 

creditable emissions reductions through 

other activities at the replacement unit. 

For example, you may be able to 

generate an emissions reduction credit if 

you reduce emissions by installing an 

inherently less-polluting replacement 

unit and accept an enforceable emission 

limitation that is lower than the baseline 

actual emissions of the replaced unit. 

Such an emissions reduction would be 

creditable if all other criteria for 

generating such credit are met.

2. Emission Units for Which You Began 

Actual Construction After the PAL 

Baseline Period 

We have decided to retain the 

calculation method that uses potentialto-emit (PTE) to determine the baseline 

actual emissions for an emissions unit 

for which you began actual construction 

after the 24-month PAL baseline period 

when establishing a PAL. As we 

reconsidered this issue and reviewed 

comments, however, we decided it was 

appropriate to clarify that this method 

of calculation applies only to emissions 

units initially constructed after the PAL 

baseline period. 

As reflected in the July 30, 2003 

Federal Register notice, our intent was 

to limit the use of PTE to emissions 

units that were not in existence during 

the baseline period. We explained in the 

July notice that we included this 

provision, and the provision requiring 

the emissions of shut down units to be 

subtracted from the PAL level, ‘‘in 

recognition that the set of emissions 

units at your source at the time of PAL 

permit issuance may be different from 

the set of emissions units that existed 

during the baseline period. You may 

have constructed additional emissions 

units, permanently shut down 

previously existing emissions units, or 

both.’’ See 68 FR 44625, column 3. 

However, in providing for the 

inclusion of PTE for some units, the 

language of the rule referred only to 

‘‘units on which actual construction 

began’’ after the PAL baseline period. 

See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(aa)(6). 

‘‘Construction’’ is defined as ‘‘any 

physical change or change in the 

method of operation (including 

fabrication, erection, installation, 

demolition, or modification of an 

emissions unit) which would result in a 

change in actual emissions.’’ See, e.g., 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(8). Because the 

definition of ‘‘construction’’

encompasses modifications, we are 

concerned that, in the future, there 

might be confusion regarding the 

intended scope of this provision. It was 

not our intention to extend this 

provision to units that merely undergo 

a modification following the baseline 

period. Therefore, we are changing the 

rule language to explicitly exclude such 

units. 

B. Remaining Issues in Petitions for 

Reconsideration 

We deny the petitioners’ requests for 

reconsideration on the remaining issues 

raised in the petitions, because they 

have failed to meet the standard for 

reconsideration under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. Specifically, 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 63025

the petitioners have failed to show: That 

it was impracticable to raise their 

objections during the comment period, 

or that the grounds for their objections 

arose after the close of the comment 

period; and/or that their concern is of 

central relevance to the outcome of the 

rule. We discuss our reasons for denying 

reconsideration in the Technical 

Support Document, which is available 

on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

nsr.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

On December 31, 2002, we finalized 

rule changes to the regulations 

governing the NSR programs mandated 

by parts C and D of title I of the Act. 

With today’s action we are promulgating 

two minor clarifications to the final 

rules. Accordingly, we believe that the 

rationale provided with the final rules is 

still applicable and sufficient. 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA 

that it considers this a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ within the meaning 

of the Executive Order. EPA has 

submitted this action to OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

OMB suggestions or recommendations 

will be documented in the public 

record. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. We are 

not promulgating any new paperwork 

(e.g., monitoring, reporting, 

recordkeeping) as part of today’s final 

action. The OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing 

regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0003, EPA ICR number 1230.11. A 

copy of the OMB approved Information 

Collection Request (ICR) may be 

obtained from Susan Auby, Collection 

Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling 

(202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

this final rule. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s action on small entities, a 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that is a small industrial entity 

as defined in the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards 

(see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; or (3) a 

small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s action on small 

entities, EPA has concluded that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In determining 

whether a rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the impact of 

concern is any significant adverse 

economic impact on small entities, 

since the primary purpose of the 

regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency 

may conclude that a rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic 

effect, on all of the small entities subject 

to the rule. A Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Screening Analysis (RFASA), developed 

as part of a 1994 draft Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) and incorporated into 

the September 1995 ICR renewal 

analysis, showed that the changes to the 

NSR program due to the 1990 Clean Air 

Act amendments would not have an 

adverse impact on small entities. This 

analysis encompassed the entire 

universe of applicable major sources 

that were likely to also be small 

businesses (approximately 50 ‘‘small 

business’’ major sources). Because the 

administrative burden of the NSR 

program is the primary source of the 

NSR program’s regulatory costs, the 

analysis estimated a negligible ‘‘cost to 

sales’’ (regulatory cost divided by the 

business category mean revenue) ratio 

for this source group. Currently, and as 

reported in the current ICR, there is no 

economic basis for a different 

conclusion.

We believe the rule changes in the 

December 31, 2002 final rule will 

reduce the regulatory burden associated 

with the major NSR program for all 

sources, including all small businesses, 

by improving the operational flexibility 

of owners and operators, improving the 

clarity of requirements, and providing 

alternatives that sources may take 

advantage of to further improve their 

operational flexibility. Today’s action 

consists of two minor clarifications to 

the December 31, 2002 final rule and 

does not change our overall assessment 

of regulatory burden. We have therefore 

concluded that the rule changes in 

December 31, 2002 final rule, as 

clarified by today’s action, will relieve 

regulatory burden for all small entities. 

63026 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule. 

The provisions of section 205 do not 

apply when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation as to why that 

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

We have determined that today’s 

action does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year. 

Although initially the changes in the 

December 31, 2002 final rule are 

expected to result in a small increase in 

the burden imposed upon reviewing 

authorities in order for them to be 

included in the State’s SIP, as well as 

other small increases in burden 

discussed under ‘‘Paperwork Reduction 

Act’’ in the preamble to the December 

31, 2002 final rule, those revisions will 

ultimately provide greater operational 

flexibility to sources permitted by the 

States, which will in turn reduce the 

overall burden of the program on State 

and local authorities by reducing the 

number of required permit 

modifications. In addition, we believe 

the 2002 rule changes will actually 

reduce the regulatory burden associated 

with the major NSR program by 

improving the operational flexibility of 

owners and operators, improving the 

clarity of requirements, and providing 

alternatives that sources may take 

advantage of to further improve their 

operational flexibility. Today’s action 

does not increase regulatory burden but 

merely clarifies two aspects of the 2002 

rule changes. Thus, today’s action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. For the same 

reasons stated above, we have 

determined that today’s action contains 

no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Thus, today’s action is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’

Today’s action does not have 

federalism implications. It will 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. While the final 

rule published on December 31, 2002 

will result in some expenditures by the 

States, we expect those expenditures to 

be limited to $331,250 per year. This 

figure includes the small increase in the 

burden imposed upon reviewing 

authorities in order for them to revise 

the State’s SIP. However, the revisions 

contained in the December 31, 2002 

final rule provide greater operational 

flexibility to sources permitted by the 

States, which will in turn reduce the 

overall burden of the program on State 

and local authorities by reducing the 

number of required permit 

modifications. Today’s action does not 

increase regulatory burden but merely 

clarifies two aspects of the December 31, 

2002 final rule. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to today’s action. 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ Today’s action does not 

have tribal implications as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The purpose of the December 31, 2002 

final rule is to add greater flexibility to 

the existing major NSR regulations. 

Those changes will benefit permitting 

authorities and the regulated 

community, including any major source 

owned by a tribal government or located 

in or near tribal land, by providing 

increased certainty as to when the 

requirements of the NSR program apply. 

Taken as a whole, the December 31, 

2002 final rule should result in no 

added burden or compliance costs and 

should not substantially change the 

level of environmental performance 

achieved under the previous rules. 

EPA anticipates that initially the 

changes in the December 31, 2002 final 

rule will result in a small increase in the 

burden imposed upon Reviewing 

Authorities in order for them to be 

included in the State’s SIP. 

Nevertheless, those revisions will 

ultimately provide greater operational 

flexibility to sources permitted by the 

States, which will in turn reduce the 

overall burden of the program on State 

and local authorities by reducing the 

number of required permit 

modifications. In comparison, no tribal 

government currently has an approved 

tribal implementation plan (TIP) under 

the Clean Air Act to implement the NSR 

program. The Federal government is 

currently the NSR permitting authority 

in Indian country. Thus, tribal 

governments should not experience 

added burden from the December 31, 

2002 final rule, nor should their laws be 

affected with respect to implementation 

of that rule. Additionally, although 

major stationary sources affected by the 

December 31, 2002 final rule could be 

located in or near Indian country and/

or be owned or operated by tribal 

governments, such sources would not 

incur additional costs or compliance 

burdens as a result of that rule. Instead, 

the only effect on such sources should 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 63027

be the benefit of the added certainty and 

flexibility provided by that rule. For the 

reasons stated above, we do not believe 

that today’s action, which clarifies two 

aspects of the December 31, 2002 final 

rule, would increase burden for tribal 

governments. In addition, we do not 

anticipate that today’s action would 

have substantial direct effects on 

sources located in or near Indian 

country or sources owned or operated 

by tribal governments. 

In our July 30, 2003 notice, EPA 

specifically solicited additional 

comment on today’s final action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children 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 Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason 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 the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

Today’s action is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. We 

believe that the December 31, 2002 final 

rule as a whole will result in equal or 

better environmental protection than 

provided by earlier regulations, and do 

so in a more streamlined and effective 

manner. Similarly, today’s action 

merely clarifies two aspects of the 

December 31, 2002 final rule and does 

not change substantially the level of 

environmental protection provided by 

that rule. As a result, today’s action is 

not expected to present a 

disproportionate environmental health 

or safety risk for children.

H. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Today’s action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. The December 31, 2002 final 

rule improves the ability of sources to 

undertake pollution prevention or 

energy efficiency projects, switch to less 

polluting fuels or raw materials, 

maintain the reliability of production 

facilities, and effectively utilize and 

improve existing capacity. That rule 

also includes a number of provisions to 

streamline administrative and 

permitting processes so that facilities 

can quickly accommodate changes in 

supply and demand. It provides several 

alternatives that are specifically 

designed to reduce administrative 

burden for sources that use pollution 

prevention or energy efficient projects. 

Today’s action merely clarifies two 

aspects of the December 31, 2002 final 

rule and thus is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (for example, 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

Today’s action does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

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. The EPA will 

submit a report containing the final rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the final 

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). 

The rule will be effective November 7, 

2003. 

V. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 101, 111, 114, 

116, 301, and 307 of the CAA as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7407, 7411, 

7414, 7416, and 7601).

VI. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of the December 31, 

2002 final rule is available only by the 

filing of a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by March 3, 2003. Any 

such judicial review is limited to only 

those objections that are raised with 

reasonable specificity in timely 

comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of 

the Act, the requirements that are the 

subject of the December 31, 2002 final 

rule may not be challenged later in civil 

or criminal proceedings brought by us to 

enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 

52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides.

Dated: October 30, 2003. 

Marianne Horinko, 

Acting Administrator.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q.

Subpart I—[Amended]

■ 2. Section 51.165 is amended:

■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(1)(vii)(B).

■ b. By adding paragraph (a)(1)(xxi).

■ c. By revising paragraph (f)(6).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 51.165 Permit requirements. 

(a) * * * 

63028 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(B) An existing emissions unit is any 

emissions unit that does not meet the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(1)(vii)(A) 

of this section. A replacement unit, as 

defined in paragraph (a)(1)(xxi) of this 

section, is an existing emissions unit.

* * * * *

(xxi) Replacement unit means an 

emissions unit for which all the criteria 

listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(xxi)(A) 

through (D) of this section are met. No 

creditable emission reductions shall be 

generated from shutting down the 

existing emissions unit that is replaced. 

(A) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit. 

(B) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit. 

(C) The replacement does not alter the 

basic design parameters (as discussed in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section) of the 

process unit. 

(D) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit.

* * * * *

(f) * * * 

(6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL 

level. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraph (f)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

plan shall provide that the actuals PAL 

level for a major stationary source shall 

be established as the sum of the baseline 

actual emissions (as defined in 

paragraph (a)(1)(xxxv) of this section) of 

the PAL pollutant for each emissions 

unit at the source; plus an amount equal 

to the applicable significant level for the 

PAL pollutant under paragraph (a)(1)(x) 

of this section or under the Act, 

whichever is lower. When establishing 

the actuals PAL level, for a PAL 

pollutant, only one consecutive 24-

month period must be used to 

determine the baseline actual emissions 

for all existing emissions units. 

However, a different consecutive 24-

month period may be used for each 

different PAL pollutant. Emissions 

associated with units that were 

permanently shut down after this 24-

month period must be subtracted from 

the PAL level. The reviewing authority 

shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in 

tons/yr) in the PAL permit to become 

effective on the future compliance 

date(s) of any applicable Federal or 

State regulatory requirement(s) that the 

reviewing authority is aware of prior to 

issuance of the PAL permit. For 

instance, if the source owner or operator 

will be required to reduce emissions 

from industrial boilers in half from 

baseline emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a 

new rule limit of 30 ppm, then the 

permit shall contain a future effective 

PAL level that is equal to the current 

PAL level reduced by half of the original 

baseline emissions of such unit(s). 

(ii) For newly constructed units 

(which do not include modifications to 

existing units) on which actual 

construction began after the 24-month 

period, in lieu of adding the baseline 

actual emissions as specified in 

paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, the 

emissions must be added to the PAL 

level in an amount equal to the potential 

to emit of the units.

* * * * *

■ 3. Section 51.166 is amended:

■ a. By revising paragraph (b)(7)(ii).

■ b. By adding paragraph (b)(32).

■ c. By revising paragraph (w)(6).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

(b) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) An existing emissions unit is any 

emissions unit that does not meet the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of 

this section. A replacement unit, as 

defined in paragraph (b)(32) of this 

section, is an existing emissions unit.

* * * * *

(32) Replacement unit means an 

emissions unit for which all the criteria 

listed in paragraphs (b)(32)(i) through 

(iv) of this section are met. No creditable 

emission reductions shall be generated 

from shutting down the existing 

emissions unit that is replaced. 

(i) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit. 

(ii) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit. 

(iii) The replacement does not change 

the basic design parameter(s) (as 

discussed in paragraph (y)(2) of this 

section) of the process unit. 

(iv) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit.

* * * * *

(w) * * * 

(6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL 

level. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraph (w)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

plan shall provide that the actuals PAL 

level for a major stationary source shall 

be established as the sum of the baseline 

actual emissions (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(47) of this section) of the 

PAL pollutant for each emissions unit at 

the source; plus an amount equal to the 

applicable significant level for the PAL 

pollutant under paragraph (b)(23) of this 

section or under the Act, whichever is 

lower. When establishing the actuals 

PAL level, for a PAL pollutant, only one 

consecutive 24-month period must be 

used to determine the baseline actual 

emissions for all existing emissions 

units. However, a different consecutive 

24-month period may be used for each 

different PAL pollutant. Emissions 

associated with units that were 

permanently shut down after this 24-

month period must be subtracted from 

the PAL level. The reviewing authority 

shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in 

tons/yr) in the PAL permit to become 

effective on the future compliance 

date(s) of any applicable Federal or 

State regulatory requirement(s) that the 

reviewing authority is aware of prior to 

issuance of the PAL permit. For 

instance, if the source owner or operator 

will be required to reduce emissions 

from industrial boilers in half from 

baseline emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a 

new rule limit of 30 ppm, then the 

permit shall contain a future effective 

PAL level that is equal to the current 

PAL level reduced by half of the original 

baseline emissions of such unit(s). 

(ii) For newly constructed units 

(which do not include modifications to 

existing units) on which actual 

construction began after the 24-month 

period, in lieu of adding the baseline 

actual emissions as specified in 

paragraph (w)(6)(i) of this section, the 

emissions must be added to the PAL 

level in an amount equal to the potential 

to emit of the units.

* * * * *

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A—[Amended]

■ 2. Section 52.21 is amended:

■ a. By revising paragraph (b)(7)(ii).

■ b. By adding paragraph (b)(33).

■ c. By revising paragraph (aa)(6).

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 63029

The revisions read as follows:

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

(b) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(ii) An existing emissions unit is any 

emissions unit that does not meet the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of 

this section. A replacement unit, as 

defined in paragraph (b)(33) of this 

section, is an existing emissions unit.

* * * * *

(33) Replacement unit means an 

emissions unit for which all the criteria 

listed in paragraphs (b)(33)(i) through 

(iv) of this section are met. No creditable 

emission reductions shall be generated 

from shutting down the existing 

emissions unit that is replaced. 

(i) The emissions unit is a 

reconstructed unit within the meaning 

of § 60.15(b)(1) of this chapter, or the 

emissions unit completely takes the 

place of an existing emissions unit. 

(ii) The emissions unit is identical to 

or functionally equivalent to the 

replaced emissions unit. 

(iii) The replacement does not alter 

the basic design parameters (as 

discussed in paragraph (cc)(2) of this 

section) of the process unit. 

(iv) The replaced emissions unit is 

permanently removed from the major 

stationary source, otherwise 

permanently disabled, or permanently 

barred from operation by a permit that 

is enforceable as a practical matter. If 

the replaced emissions unit is brought 

back into operation, it shall constitute a 

new emissions unit.

* * * * *

(aa) * * * 

(6) Setting the 10-year actuals PAL 

level. (i) Except as provided in 

paragraph (aa)(6)(ii) of this section, the 

plan shall provide that the actuals PAL 

level for a major stationary source shall 

be established as the sum of the baseline 

actual emissions (as defined in 

paragraph (b)(48) of this section) of the 

PAL pollutant for each emissions unit at 

the source; plus an amount equal to the 

applicable significant level for the PAL 

pollutant under paragraph (b)(23) of this 

section or under the Act, whichever is 

lower. When establishing the actuals 

PAL level, for a PAL pollutant, only one 

consecutive 24-month period must be 

used to determine the baseline actual 

emissions for all existing emissions 

units. However, a different consecutive 

24-month period may be used for each 

different PAL pollutant. Emissions 

associated with units that were 

permanently shut down after this 24-

month period must be subtracted from 

the PAL level. The reviewing authority 

shall specify a reduced PAL level(s) (in 

tons/yr) in the PAL permit to become 

effective on the future compliance 

date(s) of any applicable Federal or 

State regulatory requirement(s) that the 

reviewing authority is aware of prior to 

issuance of the PAL permit. For 

instance, if the source owner or operator 

will be required to reduce emissions 

from industrial boilers in half from 

baseline emissions of 60 ppm NOX to a 

new rule limit of 30 ppm, then the 

permit shall contain a future effective 

PAL level that is equal to the current 

PAL level reduced by half of the original 

baseline emissions of such unit(s). 

(ii) For newly constructed units 

(which do not include modifications to 

existing units) on which actual 

construction began after the 24-month 

period, in lieu of adding the baseline 

actual emissions as specified in 

paragraph (aa)(6)(i) of this section, the 

emissions must be added to the PAL 

level in an amount equal to the potential 

to emit of the units.

[FR Doc. 03–28104 Filed 11–6–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 98–67, DA 03–3109] 

Telecommunication Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for 

reconsideration, comments requested. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks public 

comment on petitions filed for 

reconsideration of certain rules adopted 

by the Commission in the Second 

Improved TRS Order, published at 68 

FR 50973 (August 25, 2003). The 

petitions request that the Commission 

waive and reconsider its rules regarding 

the emergency call handling of TRS 

calls, and that the Commission waive its 

rules regarding three-way call 

processing at telecommunications relay 

centers.

DATES: Interested parties may file 

comments in this proceeding on or 

before October 20, 2003. Reply 

comments may be filed on or before 

October 30, 2003. Parties that may have 

already submitted comments in this 

proceeding need not resubmit those 

comments unless they choose to update 

them.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana Jackson, Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability 

Rights Office at (202) 418–2247 (voice), 

(202) 418–7898 (TTY), or e-mail at 

Dana.Jackson@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When 

filing comments, please reference CC 

Docket No. 98–67. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 

of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). 

Comments filed through the ECFS can 

be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

If multiple docket or rulemaking 

numbers appear in the caption of this 

proceeding, however, commenters must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments to each docket or rulemaking 

number referenced in the caption. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, Postal Service mailing address, 

and the applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions for e-mail 

comments, commenters should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail 

address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing. If more than one docket or 

rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of this proceeding, commenters 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Services mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). The Commission’s contractor, 

Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. Commercial 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton