Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24709

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Resources (now known

as the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection) transmitting

source specific VOC and/or NOX RACT

determinations in the form of plan

approvals or operating permits for the

following sources: U.G.I. Utilities, Inc.

(Luzerne Co.)—utility, Solar Turbines

(York Co.)—cogeneration facility,

Columbia Gas Transmission—Renovo

Compressor Station (Clinton Co.)—

natural gas compressor station, National

Fuel Gas Supply Corporation—East Fork

Compressor Station (Potter Co.)—

natural gas compressor station, York

Resource Energy Systems, Inc. (York

Co.)—municipal waste combustion

facility, W.R. Grace & Co.—Formpac

Division (Berks Co.)—expandable

polystyrene blowing facility, CNG

Transmission—Cherry Tree Station

(Indiana Co.)—natural gas transmission

station, EPC Power Corporation of

Bethlehem (Delaware Co.)—Crozer

Chester Cogeneration Plant, C-P

Converters, Inc. (York Co.)—

flexographic printing operation, Fisher

Scientific Co. International—Instrument

Manufacturing Division (Indiana Co.). In

addition, the permits containing

provisions limiting source emissions to

synthetic minor sources levels (below

RACT threshold level of 100 tons per

year or 25 TPY of potential NOX

emissions and 50 TPY or 25 TPY for

potential VOC emissions) are being

approved for three sources: Adelphi

Kitchens, Inc.—Robesonia factory (Berks

Co.)—wood furniture coating operation,

Birchcraft Kitchens, Inc.—Reading

factory (Berks Co.)—wood furniture

coating operation, and Glasgow, Inc.—

Bridgeport Asphalt Plant (Montgomery

Co.)—asphalt plant.

(B) Plan approvals (PA), Operating

permits (OP), Compliance permit (CP):

(1) U.G.I. Utilities, Inc.—OP 40–0005,

effective December 20, 1994 and PA 40–

0005A, effective December 20, 1994,

except the expiration date of the plan

approval and conditions # 18, 19, and

20 pertaining to non-VOC or NOX

emissions and ash and waste oil

requirements.

(2) Solar Turbines—PA 67–2009,

effective August 17, 1995, except the

expiration date of the plan approval and

CP 67–2009, effective August 17, 1995,

except the expiration date of the

compliance permit.

(3) Columbia Gas Transmission—

Renovo Compressor Station—OP 18–

0001, effective July 18, 1995, except the

expiration date of the operating permit

and condition #8, pertaining to

compliance date extensions and PA 18–

0001, effective July 18, 1995, except the

expiration date of the plan approval and

condition #14, pertaining to compliance

date extensions.

(4) National Fuel Gas Supply

Corporation—East Fork Compressor

Station—OP 53–0007, effective July 17,

1995, except the expiration date of the

operating permit, including the

corrections to condition #6 and 13 (from

a letter dated July 31, 1995) and PA 53–

0007A, effective July 17, 1995, except

the expiration date of the plan approval.

(5) York Resource Energy Systems,

Inc.—PA 67–2006, effective August 25,

1995, except the expiration date of the

plan approval and the non-VOC or nonNOX elements in conditions #4, 8, 9, 10

12, 18, and 19.

(6) W.R. Grace & Co.—Formpac

Division—PA 06–1036, effective May

12, 1995, except the expiration date of

the plan approval and condition #10 (d)

and (e) pertaining to compliance date

extensions and PA 06–315–001,

effective June 4, 1992, except the

expiration date of the plan approval.

(7) CNG Transmission Corporation—

Cherry Tree Station—PA 32–000–303,

effective July 5, 1995, except the

expiration date of the plan approval, the

elements in condition #6 pertaining to

carbon monoxide, and condition #16 D.

and E. pertaining to compliance date

extensions.

(8) EPC Power Corporation of

Bethlehem—Crozer Chester

Cogeneration plant—OP 23–0007,

effective June 8, 1995, except the

expiration date of the operating permit.

(9) C–P Converters, Inc.—OP 67–2030,

effective August 30, 1995, except the

expiration date of the operating permit.

(10) Fisher Scientific—Instrument

Manufacturing Division—OP 32–000–

100, effective July 18, 1995, except the

expiration date of the operating permit.

(11) Adelphi Kitchens, Inc.—

Robesonia factory—OP 06–1001,

effective April 4, 1995, except the

expiration date of the operating permit.

(12) Birchcraft Kitchens, Inc.—

Reading factory—OP 06–1005, effective

April 4, 1995, except the expiration date

of the operating permit.

(13) Glasgow, Inc.—Bridgeport

Asphalt Plant—OP 46–0044, effective

June 7, 1995, except the expiration date

of the operating permit.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of January 6, 1995, July

5, 1995, August 1, 1995, September 20,

1995, State submittals.

(B) Revision to the Pennsylvania SIP

dated March 18, 1996, submitted by the

Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, pertaining to

the 1990 emission inventory for General

Glass—Jeannette, Westmoreland

County.

3. Section 52.2037 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.2037 Control Strategy: Carbon

monoxide and ozone (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *

(d) NOX RACT determination for the

no. 2 glass melting furnace and the four

kilns at the General Glass—Jeannette

plant, which manufactured flat glass, is

the current operation, consisting of no

additional controls.

4. Section 52.2036 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 52.2036 1990 Baseyear Emission

Inventory.

* * * * *

(c) The 1990 NOX emissions for the

no. 2 glass melting furnace at the

General Glass—Jeannette plant, located

in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania

is 508.2 tons per year. Westmoreland

County is part of the Pittsburgh

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

The 1990 NOX emissions for the four

kilns (no. 1 through 4) is 11.8 tons per

year. This facility does not contain any

other NOX emitting units.

[FR Doc. 96–12355 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[OR47–11–7052a; FRL–5504–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves Oregon’s

Transportation conformity rules

received on April 17, 1995, from the

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality (ODEQ). The Clean Air Act

(CAA or Act) requires the states to

promulgate conformity rules to ensure

that Federal actions conform to the

appropriate State Implementation Plan

(SIP). Conformity to a SIP is defined in

the CAA, as amended in 1990, as

meaning conformity to a SIP’s purpose

of eliminating or reducing the severity

and number of violations of the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

and achieving expeditious attainment of

such standards. The Federal agency

responsible for the action is required to

determine if its actions conform to the

applicable SIP.

DATES: This action is effective on July

15, 1996 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 17,

1996. If the effective date is delayed,
24710 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, EPA Region 10, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), OR47–11–7052,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Copies of material submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA Region 10, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OAQ–107),

Seattle, WA 98101, and the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality,

811 S.W. 6th Avenue, Portland, OR

97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Elson, EPA Region 10, Office of

Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–

1463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The CAA section 176(c), as amended

(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), requires states

to submit to EPA revisions to their

implementation plans establishing

transportation and general conformity

criteria and procedures. EPA regulation

requires the states to submit SIP

revisions by November 25, 1994, and

November 30, 1994. These conformity

rules are to ensure that all Federal

actions conform to the appropriate SIP

developed pursuant to section 110 and

part D of the CAA. Conformity to a SIP

is defined in the CAA, as amended in

1990, as meaning conformity to a SIP’s

purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) and achieving expeditious

attainment of such standards, and that

such activities will not:

1. Cause or contribute to any new

violation of any standard in any area,

2. Increase the frequency or severity

of any existing violation of any standard

in any area, or

3. Delay timely attainment of any

standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in any area.

The CAA ties conformity to

attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS. Thus, Federal actions must not

adversely affect the timely attainment

and maintenance of the NAAQS or

emission reduction progress plans

leading to attainment. The Federal

agency responsible for the action is

required to determine if its actions

conform to the applicable SIP. The

Oregon transportation conformity rule

establishes the criteria and procedures

governing the determination of

conformity for all Federal actions in

nonattainment or maintenance areas in

the State of Oregon for Federal highway

and transit actions. Therefore, the

criteria and procedures established in

this rule apply only in areas that are

nonattainment or maintenance with

respect to any of the criteria pollutants

under the CAA: carbon monoxide (CO),

lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone

(O3), particulate matter (PM10), and

sulfur dioxide (SO2). The rule covers

direct and indirect emissions of criteria

pollutants or their precursors that are

reasonably foreseeable and caused by a

Federal action.

The Oregon submittal contains

transportation conformity regulations

that are consistent with the CAA

requirements. These regulations are at

least as stringent as the Federal

regulations and in some cases are more

stringent. Oregon’s regulations establish

procedural requirements including

interagency consultation procedures.

They also require the responsible

agency to make their conformity

determinations available for public

review. Notice of draft and final

conformity determinations must be

provided directly to air quality

regulatory agencies and to the public by

publication in a local newspaper. The

conformity determination examines the

impacts of the direct and indirect

emissions from the Federal action. The

regulations require the Federal action to

also meet any applicable SIP

requirements and emission milestones.

Each Federal agency must determine

that any actions covered by the rule

conform to the applicable SIP before the

action is taken.

The Oregon rule includes interagency

consultation procedures which will

occur during the development of

transportation plans, transportation

improvement programs, and State

Implementation Plans, and before

findings of conformity.

The rule includes a provision that

‘‘regionally significant’’ transportation

projects meet the criteria of the rule

regardless of the funding source (OAR

340–20–720 (42) and OAR 340–20–760).

The determination of ‘‘regionally

significant’’ projects will be made

through interagency consultation with

affected parties.

The rule includes reduced time

frames for compliance with mobile

source emissions budget once a

maintenance SIP has been approved by

the Oregon Environmental Quality

Commission (EQC). The rule also

includes reduced time frames for

demonstrating timely implementation of

transportation control measures (TCMs)

once the EQC adopts a SIP revision

which adds TCMs. The rule requires

timely implementation of all TCMs

identified as necessary to where

attainment or maintenance of and air

quality standard is jeopardized,

regardless of their eligibility for Federal

funding.

II. This Action

This Action approves Oregon

Administrative Rule (OAR) Sections

340–2–700 to 1080 as an amendment to

the Oregon SIP. Specifically these rules

are as follows:

340–20–700 Title.

340–20–710 Purpose.

340–20–720 Definitions.

340–20–730 Applicability.

340–20–740 Priority.

340–20–750 Frequency of conformity

determinations.

340–20–760 Consultation.

340–20–770 Content of transportation

plans.

340–20–780 Relationship of

transportation plan and TIP

conformity with the NEPA process.

340–20–790 Fiscal constraints for

transportation plans.

340–20–800 Criteria and procedures

for determining conformity of

transportation plans.

340–20–810 Criteria and procedures:

Latest planning assumptions.

340–20–820 Criteria and procedures:

Latest emissions model.

340–20–830 Criteria and procedures:

Consultation.

340–20–840 Criteria and procedures:

Timely implementation of TCMs.

340–20–850 Criteria and procedures:

Currently conforming

transportation plan and TIP.

340–20–860 Criteria and procedures:

Projects from a plan and TIP.

340–20–870 Criteria and procedures:

Localized CO and PM–10 violations

(hot spots).

340–20–880 Criteria and procedures:

Compliance with PM–10 control

measures.

340–20–890 Motor vehicle emissions

budget (transportation plan).

340–20–900 Criteria and procedures:

Motor vehicle emissions budget

(TIP).

340–20–910 Criteria and procedures:

Motor vehicle emissions budget

(project not from a plan and TIP).

340–20–920 Criteria and procedures:

Localized CO violations (hot spots)

in the interim period.

340–20–930 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions in ozone

and CO areas (transportation plan).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24711

340–20–940 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions in ozone

and CO areas (TIP).

340–20–950 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions for ozone

and CO areas (project not from a

plan and TIP).

340–20–960 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions for PM–

10 and NO2 areas (transportation

plan).

340–20–970 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions for PM–

10 and NO2 areas (TIP).

340–20–980 Criteria and procedures:

Interim period reductions for PM–

10 and NO2 areas (project not from

a plan and TIP).

340–20–990 Transition from the

interim period to the control

strategy period.

340–20–1000 Requirements for the

adoption or approval of projects by

recipients of funds designated

under title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal

Transit Act.

340–20–1010 Procedures for

determining regional

transportation-related emissions.

340–20–1020 Procedures for

determining localized CO and PM–

10 concentrations (hot-spot

analysis).

340–20–1030 Using the motor vehicle

emissions budget in the applicable

implementation plan (or

implementation plan submission).

340–20–1040 Enforceability of design

concept and scope and project-level

mitigation and control measures.

340–20–1050 Exempt projects.

340–20–1060 Projects exempt from

regional emissions analyses.

340–20–1070 Special provisions for

nonattainment areas which are not

required to demonstrate reasonable

further progress and attainment.

340–20–1080 Savings provisions.

III. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or Tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and

least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule 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 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or Tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective July 15, 1996

unless, by June 17, 1996 adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective July 15, 1996.

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 July 15, 1996.

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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of Oregon

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
24712 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 96 / Thursday, May 16, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (113) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(113) On April 14, 1995, the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

submitted a revision to its SIP for the

State of Oregon to include the

Transportation Conformity: OAR 340–

20–710 through 340–20–1080.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) April 14, 1995 letter from ODEQ

director Lydia Taylor to EPA Regional

Administrator Chuck Clarke submitting

a revision to the Oregon SIP to include

the Transportation Conformity: OAR

340–20–710 through 340–20–1080;

Division 20, Air Pollution Control,

Criteria and Procedures for Determining

Conformity to State or Federal

Implementation Plans of Transportation

Plans, Programs, and Projects Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the

Federal Transit Act, effective March 29,

1995.

[FR Doc. 96–12353 Filed 5–15–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[AK6–1–6587; FRL–5465–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

Alaska on March 24, 1994 which

implements an oxygenated gasoline

program in the Municipality of

Anchorage. This SIP revision satisfies

certain Federal requirements for carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas

with a design value of 9.5 parts per

million (ppm) or greater to implement

an oxygenated gasoline program. Motor

vehicles are significant contributors of

CO emissions. An important measure

for reducing these emissions is the use

of cleaner burning oxygenated gasoline.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request

and other information supporting this

action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations: EPA, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, and the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite

105, Juneau, Alaska 99801–1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Montel Livingston, EPA, Office of Air

Quality, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553–

0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Under section 211(m) of the Clean Air

Act, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), Alaska

was required to submit a revised SIP

under section 110 and part D of title I

that includes an oxygenated gasoline

program for its CO nonattainment areas

(those areas with a design value of 9.5

ppm or greater). The CO standard is 9

ppm and was established based on

criteria which allows for an adequate

margin of safety to protect human

health. The 9 ppm standard is intended

to keep carboxyhemoglobin levels below

2.1% in order to protect the most

sensitive members of the general

population (i.e. individuals with heart

disease and other physiological

weaknesses).

Motor vehicles are significant

contributors of CO emissions. An

important measure for reducing these

emissions is the use of cleaner burning

oxygenated gasoline. Extra oxygen

enhances fuel combustion and helps to

offset fuel-rich operating conditions,

particularly during vehicle starting

which are more prevalent in the winter.

To comply with the Act, Alaska

implemented an oxygenated gasoline

program containing methyl tertiary

butyl ether (MTBE) as the oxygenate in

the early winter of 1992. Shortly

thereafter, the State received numerous

health and driveability complaints from

the public regarding exposure to and

use of MTBE blended gasoline. In

December 1992 the Governor of Alaska

temporarily suspended the oxygenated

fuel program, and the suspension

continued the following winter.

During this suspension, a series of

studies began which examined issues

including health and driveability at cold

temperatures using oxygenated gasoline

in climate fluctuations such as the

Municipalities of Anchorage and

Fairbanks experience. These studies

were initiated in part by the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation (ADEC) and in part by

State health officials in Alaska who

invited the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention and others to assist in

investigation of possible health effects.

Studies concluded that pumping the

ethanol blend does not appear to

increase the prevalence of acute adverse

health effects or unusual exposures

when compared to pumping regular

gasoline. Data also showed there were

no adverse driveability effects utilizing

ethanol in Anchorage during the study

period.

In response to the public’s concerns

about MTBE, Anchorage, through ADEC

and the industry providers, agreed to

implement an oxygenated fuel program

using ethanol as the oxygenate rather

than MTBE by diluting regular unleaded

gasoline with ethanol to 10 percent

ethanol by volume. This oxygenated

fuel program began in Anchorage in

January 1995 and lasted for about three

months. This initial control period for

Anchorage using an ethanol blend was

successful with the general public and

for air quality—there were no

exceedances of the CO National Air

Ambient Quality Standards (NAAQS)

during that period. The program

resumed again in the winter of 1995–96,

November 1, 1995 through February 29,

1996.

The State of Alaska submitted the

Oxygenated Gasoline Requirements (18

AAC 53.005–18 AAC 53.190) with

amendments adopted through March 19,

1994, to EPA on March 24, 1994, as a

revision to the Alaska SIP. EPA

reviewed the submittal and concluded

that the revision met the applicable

requirements of the Act. In a direct final

rule published October 24, 1995, EPA

approved the revision to be effective on

December 26, 1995, unless EPA received

adverse or critical comments by

November 24, 1995 (see 60 FR 54435).

In the same Federal Register, EPA also

published an accompanying proposed

rule (see 60 FR 54465), explaining that

if EPA received adverse comments on

the direct final rule approving ADEC’s

submittal re the oxygenated gasoline

program, then EPA would withdraw the

direct final rule and would respond to

all comments on the proposal in a

subsequent final rule. The proposed

action also indicated that anyone

wishing to comment should do so by

November 24, 1995.

EPA received an adverse comment on

November 22, 1995, pertaining to its

approval of Alaska’s SIP submittal. The