5928 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 

75495). EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule is 

withdrawn as of February 4, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Notarianni, Air Planning 

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

((404) 562–9031 (phone) or 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov (e-mail).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: January 24, 2005. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 05–2069 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[FL–87; FL–89–200501, FRL–7869–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida: Citrus 

Juice Processing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final conditional approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is conditionally 

approving a revision to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of 

a new Florida statute and implementing 

regulations that set emission limits for 

existing and new equipment at existing 

citrus juice processing facilities in 

Florida. This approval is conditioned 

upon a commitment from the State to 

adopt specific enforceable measures, as 

stated in the proposed rule published 

January 30, 2004 (69 FR 4459), within 

one year from the effective date of this 

rule. If the State fails to meet its 

commitment by adopting and 

submitting to EPA the necessary 

revisions within the one-year period, 

the approval is treated as a disapproval.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective March 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Control No. FL–87 and FL–89. Some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available at the Air Permits Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 

Federal holidays. Copies of the State 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency: Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Division of 

Air Resources Management, 2600 Blair 

Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399–

2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Kelly Fortin, Air Permits Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, Region 4, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. The telephone number is 

(404) 562–9117. Ms. Fortin can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

fortin.kelly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Today’s Action 

Today’s action is a conditional 

approval under section 110(k)(4) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA may 

conditionally approve a plan based on 

a commitment from the State to adopt 

specific enforceable measures within 

one year from the effective date of final 

conditional approval. Because the 

revisions would materially alter the 

existing SIP approved rule, the State 

must make a SIP submittal. If the State 

fails to adopt and submit the specified 

measures by the end of one year from 

the effective date of this conditional 

approval, or fails to make a submittal, 

EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. 

If EPA determines that the rule with the 

specified measures is approvable, EPA 

will propose approval of the rule in the 

Federal Register. EPA will 

conditionally approve a certain rule 

only once. 

II. Background 

EPA is taking this action in response 

to a request from the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) to revise Florida’s SIP and Title 

V operating permit program to include 

an alternative regulatory program for 

citrus juice processing facilities. FDEP’s 

complete submittal, received by EPA on 

July 29, 2002, includes a new citrus 

statute (Florida Statute 403.08725), 

which the State adopted in July 2000 

and amended on June 12, 2003, as well 

as draft implementing regulations and 

supporting material. FDEP formally 

adopted these implementing regulations 

in December 2002. 62–210.340 F.A.C. 

FDEP also requested that the statute and 

regulation be considered by EPA 

pursuant to the Joint EPA/State 

Agreement to Pursue Regulatory 

Innovation between EPA and the 

Environmental Council of the States 

(‘‘ECOS’’). 63 FR 24784. After a detailed 

review, EPA responded to FDEP with 

letters, dated September 18, 2002, and 

April 24, 2003, listing several changes to 

the program that must be made in order 

for EPA to incorporate the program into 

the Florida SIP. On January 31, 2003, 

FDEP made a supplemental submittal 

outlining their intent to make necessary 

statutory and regulatory revisions to the 

program. In a Federal Register notice 

published on January 30, 2004, EPA 

requested comment on a proposal to 

conditionally approve the proposed 

changes to the Florida SIP. The Federal 

Register notice described the proposed 

program and identified specific 

deficiencies that EPA has determined 

must be corrected in order for EPA to 

approve the program as part of the 

Florida SIP. You may access this notice 

and the January 30, 2004 Federal 

Register document electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov. No 

comments were received by EPA during 

the 30 day public comment period. 

The proposed program requires the 

existing juice processing facilities in 

Florida to comply with specified terms 

in the statute when they construct, 

operate, and modify air emissions units. 

For some units these conditions are 

different from those required by the 

conventional construction and operating 

permit requirements required by the 

SIP-approved Florida regulations that 

currently apply to citrus juice 

processing facilities. The statute 

requires a 65 percent recovery (50 

percent the first year) of d-limonene oil 

from peel processed through the peel 

dryer. This reduction will decrease 

emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) from these facilities 

by approximately 38 percent. The citrus 

facilities can comply with the VOC 

emission limitations through a 

combination of emission controls, 

pollution prevention, and emission 

credits that can be generated through 

over-control of the juice processing 

facilities. The statute includes 

requirements for emissions of VOC, 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and particulate matter (PM), for 

existing units and for new units. New 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 5929

units include units that are modified or 

are relocated. The program also 

incorporates all applicable federal 

standards (such as maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) for 

hazardous air pollutants and New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS)). 

The statute and implementing 

regulations will be considered a general 

permit for the purpose of Title V of the 

CAA. Further details regarding the 

program can be found in EPA’s January 

30, 2004 Federal Register notice and in 

the public docket referenced above.

Today’s approval is conditioned upon 

FDEP making specific changes to the 

State statute and regulations. FDEP will 

have one year from the effective date of 

this conditional approval to complete 

and submit to EPA the necessary 

program revisions. After EPA receives 

the State’s submittal, EPA will review 

the changes to ensure that they remedy 

the deficiencies identified in the 

January 30, 2004 notice. These 

deficiencies relate to: the allowable fuel 

sulfur content; PM–10 emissions; a 

maximum production limit; regulated 

and toxic air pollutants; public petitions 

and judicial review; performance 

measures; and program review. If EPA 

believes these changes are approvable, 

EPA will publish a proposed action to 

approve the SIP and Title V revisions, 

again soliciting public comment. The 

Florida statute previously provided that 

it would expire if EPA did not approve 

the program as revisions to Florida’s SIP 

and Title V program by January 31, 

2005, and that in that event, the 

applicable requirements would revert 

back to those of the conventional 

permitting programs. However, the 

statutory ‘‘sunset’’ date has been 

extended to July 1, 2005 (F.S. 

403.08725, as amended 5/28/04). 

III. Final Action 

EPA is conditionally approving the 

Florida SIP revision consisting of an 

innovative strategy to create an 

alternative program for regulating the 

existing citrus juice industry, which was 

submitted on January 30, 2001, with 

additional material submitted on July 

16, 2002 and January 31, 2003, with the 

condition that Florida correct the 

deficiencies described in our January 

30, 2004 action (69 FR 4459). EPA is 

taking this action pursuant to our 

authority in section 110(k)4 of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under State law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by State law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

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

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 5, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: January 25, 2005. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

■ Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations, is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart (K)—Florida

■ 2. A new § 52.519 is added to read as 

follows:

5930 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 23 / Friday, February 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 52.519 Identification of plan-conditional 

approval. 

EPA is conditionally approving a 

revision to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of 

a new citrus statute (Florida Statute 

403.08725), as well as implementing 

regulations (62–210.340 F.A.C.) based 

upon a commitment from the State to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by 

March 7, 2006. If the State fails to meet 

its commitment by March 7, 2006, the 

approval is treated as a disapproval.

[FR Doc. 05–2072 Filed 2–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7868–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule of deletion of 

the Southern Maryland Wood Treating 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a 

direct final rule of deletion of the 

Southern Maryland Wood Treating 

Superfund Site (Site), located in 

Hollywood (St. Mary’s County), 

Maryland, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). 

The NPL, promulgated pursuant to 

section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended (CERCLA), is 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP). This direct final rule of deletion 

is being published by EPA with the 

concurrence of the State of Maryland, 

through the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE), because EPA has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed and, therefore, further 

remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is 

not appropriate.

DATES: This direct final rule deletion 

will be effective April 5, 2005, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

March 7, 2005. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule 

deletion in the Federal Register

informing the public that the deletion 

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

to: Robert Sanchez, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region III (3HS23), 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, (215) 814–3451. 

Information Repositories:

Comprehensive information about the 

Site is available for viewing and copying 

at the Site information repositories 

located at: U.S. EPA Region III, Regional 

Center for Environmental Information 

(RCEI), 1650 Arch Street (2nd Floor), 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, (215) 

814–5254, Monday through Friday, 8 

a.m. to 5 p.m.; and in Maryland at the 

St. Mary’s County Library, 23250 

Hollywood Road, Leonardtown, MD 

20650 (301) 475–2846, Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Sanchez, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region III (3HS23), 

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 

19103–2029, (215) 814–3451 or 1–800–

553–2509.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction 

EPA Region III is publishing this 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Southern Maryland Wood Treating 

Superfund Site from the NPL. 

The EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health or the environment and 

maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for remedial actions if 

conditions at a deleted site warrant such 

action. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication of a 

notice of intent to delete. This action 

will be effective April 5, 2005, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

March 7, 2005, on this document or the 

parallel notice of intent to delete 

published in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this notice or the notice of intent to 

delete, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this direct final notice of 

deletion before the effective date of the 

deletion and the deletion will not take 

effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Southern Maryland 

Wood Treating Superfund Site and 

demonstrates how it meets the deletion 

criteria. Section V discusses EPA’s 

action to delete the Site from the NPL 

unless adverse comments are received 

during the public comment period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP 

provides that releases may be deleted 

from the NPL where no further response 

is appropriate. In making a 

determination to delete a Site from the 

NPL, EPA shall consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

(Hazardous Substance Superfund 

Response Trust Fund) response under 

CERCLA has been implemented, and no 

further response action by responsible 

parties is appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at the deleted 

site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 

U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a 

subsequent review of the site be 

conducted at least every five years after 

the initiation of the remedial action at 

the deleted site to ensure that the action 

remains protective of public health and 

the environment. If new information 

becomes available which indicates a 

need for further action, EPA may initiate 

remedial actions. Whenever there is a 

significant release from a site deleted 

from the NPL, the deleted site may be 

restored to the NPL without application 

of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

Maryland on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL prior to developing this 

direct final notice of deletion. 

(2) The State of Maryland has 

concurred with deletion of the Site from 

the NPL.