Federal Register: April 4, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 65)
DOCID: FR Doc 03-8152
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Treasury Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52
RIN ID: RIN 2060-AK41
FRL ID: [FRL-7476-3]
NOTICE: Part III
DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Section 126 Rule: Withdrawal Provision
DATES: The comment period on this proposal ends on May 24, 2003. Comments must be postmarked by the last day of the comment period and sent directly to the Docket Office listed in ADDRESSES (in duplicate form if possible). A public hearing will be held on April 24, 2003 in Washington, DC, if one is requested by April 10, 2003. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment period and hearing.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
In today's action, EPA is proposing to revise one narrow
aspect of a final rule published on January 18, 2000, known as the
Section 126 Rule. The EPA promulgated the rule in response to petitions
submitted by four Northeastern States under section 126 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the purpose of mitigating interstate transport of
nitrogen oxides (NO
Originally, EPA harmonized the Section 126 Rule with a related
ozone transport rule, known as the NO
NO
SUMMARY:
Environmental Protection Agency,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Public Hearing
The EPA will conduct a public hearing on this proposal on April 24,
2003 beginning at 9 a.m., if requested on or before April 10, 2003. The
EPA will not hold a hearing if one is not requested. Please check EPA's
Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/rto_whatsnew.html
on April 11, 2003 for the announcement of whether the hearing will be
held. If there is a public hearing, it will be held at Ariel Rios
North, Room 1332, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Metro stop is Federal Triangle. If you want to request a hearing
and present oral testimony at the hearing, you should notify, on or
before April 10, 2003, JoAnn Allman, EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division,
C53902, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 5411815, e
mail allman.joann@epa.gov. Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes
each. The hearing will be strictly limited to the subject matter of the
proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. Any member of the
public may file a written statement by the close of the comment period.
Written statements (duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted to
Docket No. A9743 at the addresses given above for submittal of
comments. The hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be
posted on EPA's Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/rto_whatsnew.html. A verbatim transcript of the hearing, if held, and
written statements will be made available for copying during normal
working hours at the EPA Docket Center address given above for inspection of documents.
Availability of Related Information
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public version, has been established under docket number A9743 (including comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as confidential business information, is available for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official rulemaking record is located at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document. In addition, the Federal Register rulemaking actions and associated documents are located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/126/index.html.
The EPA has issued a separate rule on NO
[[Page 16645]]
in the section 126 rulemaking, and hence documents in that docket are
part of the rulemaking record for this rule. Documents related to the
NO
Submitting Electronic Comments
Electronic comments are encouraged and can be sent directly to EPA
at AandRDocket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect 8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in
electronic form must be identified by the docket number A9743.
Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Outline
I. What is the Relationship Between the Section 126 Rule and the NO
II. What is the History of the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision?
III. Why Does the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Need to be Revised?
A. Under What Circumstances Does the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Currently Operate?
B. How Have Court Actions Affected the Circumstances Upon Which the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Was Based?
1. Court Actions on the NO
2. Court Actions on the Section 126 Rule.
IV. What is EPA's Proposal to Revise the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision?
A. What is EPA's Proposal Related to the SIP Compliance Date?
B. What is EPA's Proposal Related to Withdrawing the Section 126 Rule Based on a Phase 1 SIP?
V. What is the Current Status of the NO
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
I. What Is the Relationship Between the Section 126 Rule and the NO
In the past several years, EPA has been engaged in two separate
rulemakings to address the interstate ozone transport problem in the
eastern half of the United States. These rules, known as the
NO
On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA promulgated the
NO
\1\ As a result of a court decision, EPA will now only be
including 21 States and the District of Columbia in the SIP Call.
In 1997, while EPA was in the process of developing the
NO
NO
The EPA took action on the Section 126 petitions in final rules
issued on May 25, 1999 and January 18, 2000 (together known as the
Section 126 Rule) (64 FR 28250 and 65 FR 2674). In acting on the
section 126 petitions, EPA relied on analyses and information used in
the NO
\2\ Several of the petitions also requested that EPA also make
findings under the 8hour ozone standard. The EPA made technical
determinations under the 8hour standard in the May 25, 1999 rule
but later stayed that portion of the rule in light of litigation on the 8hour standard (65 FR 2674; January 18, 2000).
The Section 126 Rule overlaps considerably with the NO
II. What Is the History of the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision?
When EPA issued the May 25, 1999 Section 126 Rule, there was an
existing requirement under the NO
a State took timely action under the NO
\3\ This approach of ``harmonizing'' the Section 126 Rule and
the NO
The NO
\4\ Because of the stay on the Section 126 Rule with respect to
the 8hour standard, EPA did not make findings under the 8hour
standard at that time. EPA plans to complete it's actions on the 8 hour petitions in a future rulemaking.
III. Why Does the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Need To Be Revised?
A. Under What Circumstances Does the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Currently Operate?
Section 52.34(i) of the Section 126 Rule currently provides that:
* * * a finding [under the Section 126 Rule] as to a particular
major source or group of stationary sources in a particular State
will be deemed to be withdrawn, and the corresponding part of the
relevant petition(s) denied, if the Administrator issues a final
action putting in place implementation plans that comply with the
requirements of Sec. Sec. 51.121 and 51.122 [the NO
As discussed in the Section 126 Rule (65 FR 26822684), the premise
for the automatic withdrawal provision was that once a SIP (or Federal
implementation plan (FIP)) controls the full amount of significant
contribution from a State, the section 126 sources in that State could
no longer be significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment, and
hence the basis for the section 126 findings would no longer be
present. Further, the provision would ensure that the downwind
petitioning States receive the emission reduction benefits they are
entitled to under section 126 by May 1, 2003, which was then the
compliance date, either under the Section 126 Rule or under a Federally
enforceable SIP or FIP (65 FR 2684). Thus, EPA's rationale for adopting
the automatic withdrawal provision depended upon a May 1, 2003
compliance date for sources under the SIP that would substitute for the
control remedy under the Section 126 Rule. Accordingly, EPA interpreted
section 52.34(i) to apply only where EPA approves a SIP revision (or
promulgates a FIP) meeting the full requirements of the NO
B. How Have Court Actions Affected the Circumstances Upon Which the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision Was Based?
Both the NO
1. Court Actions on the NO
On March 3, 2000, a panel of the D.C. Circuit largely upheld the
NO
As a result of the court decision, EPA divided the NO
The EPA promulgated the January 2000 Section 126 Rule at the time
when the NO
2. Court Actions on the Section 126 Rule
On May 15, 2001, the court ruled on a number of challenges to EPA's
Section 126 Rule. See Appalachian Power v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032 (D.C.
Cir. 2001). The court largely upheld the Section 126 Rule, but remanded
two issues to EPA. The court directed EPA to: (1) Properly justify
either the current or a new set of EGU heat input growth rates to be used in estimating State heat input
[[Page 16647]]
in 2007, and (2) either properly justify or alter its categorization of
cogenerators that sell electricity to the electric grid as EGUs.\5\
\5\ The EPA is responding to the remand related to the
categorization of cogenerators in a rulemaking that was proposed on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8396).
On August 24, 2001, the D.C. Circuit Court tolled (suspended) the
compliance period for EGUs under the Section 126 Rule as of the May 15,
2001 decision pending EPA's response to the remand related to EGU
growth rates. Appalachian Power v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1052 (D.C. Cir 2001),
Order (August 24, 2001). The EPA issued its response in a notice
published on May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21868). Because of the time needed to
fully respond to the growth factor remand, the tolling of the
compliance period resulted in a delay in the implementation of the
Section 126 Rule until the 2004 ozone season. This created a need for EPA to once again harmonize the Section 126 Rule with the
NO
IV. What Is EPA's Proposal To Revise the Section 126 Rule Withdrawal Provision?
A number of reasons supported structuring the May 25, 1999 Section
126 Rule to provide for an automatic withdrawal of the section 126
findings upon approval of a SIP revision complying with the
NO
A. What Is EPA's Proposal Related to the SIP Compliance Date?
As discussed in Section III.A. above, EPA interprets the current
Section 126 Rule withdrawal provision to operate only when the SIP has
a May 1, 2003 compliance date. Because the Section 126 Rule compliance
deadline is now May 31, 2004, a NO
B. What Is EPA's Proposal Related to Withdrawing the Section 126 Rule Based on a Phase 1 SIP?
The current withdrawal provision requires a State to meet the full
NO
At the time EPA promulgated the Section 126 Rule, the
NO
Although the Phase 1 SIP would achieve the vast majority of the SIP Call reductions, there is no guarantee that a Phase 1 SIP would, in all cases, control at least the same amount of emissions as the Section 126 Rule in a State or that the State would choose to regulate all the identified Section 126 sources. Therefore, EPA is not proposing that simply meeting the Phase 1 reductions would provide a basis for automatic withdrawal of the Section 126 requirements. Instead, EPA is proposing that the Section 126 Rule be withdrawn in a State under the more limited circumstances where EPA determines that an approved Phase 1 SIP is requiring at least the same total quantity of emissions reductions from the same group of sources as controlled under the Section 126 Rule by May 31, 2004. In this situation, the SIP would retain the environmental benefits that section 126 would have provided and the section 126 sources would no longer be significantly contributing to downwind nonattainment problems.
The process for withdrawing the Section 126 Rule based on a Phase 1
SIP would differ slightly from the situation where a State adopts a SIP
meeting the full NO
Based on the review of SIPs to date, EPA believes it is likely that
all of the Phase 1 SIPs from States affected by the Section 126 Rule
will regulate all of the section 126 sources to the same stringency as
the Section 126 Rule. However, not all of the Phase 1 SIPs have been
fully approved yet and one affected State has not yet submitted its
SIP. Therefore, EPA is still considering whether there are other
circumstances under which it would be appropriate to withdraw the
Section 126 Rule. The EPA is soliciting comments on alternative
approaches for withdrawing the Section 126 Rule based on an approved Phase 1 SIP.
V. What Is the Current Status of the NO
The January 2000 Section 126 Rule affected sources located in the
District of Columbia and the following 12 States: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North
[[Page 16648]]
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia.\6\ All of
these States are required to submit Phase 1 SIPs under the
NO
\6\ Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were only partially covered by the Section 126 Rule.
The District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York
voluntarily adopted SIPs that meet the original full NO
\7\ The EPA is currently revising certain portions of the
NO
North Carolina adopted a SIP meeting the original full
NO
The EPA is today proposing that the approved Phase 1 SIPs from Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia regulate the total group of section 126 sources in the respective States to the same stringency as the Section 126 Rule and include a compliance date no later than May 31, 2004. If EPA finalizes today's rule revision as proposed, the Section 126 Rule under the 1hour standard will be withdrawn for sources in those States upon the effective date of the final rule.
The EPA proposed to conditionally approve the Virginia and Ohio SIPs. In today's action, EPA is proposing that once Virginia and Ohio satisfy the conditions identified in their respective SIP proposal actions and EPA fully approves the SIPs, each SIP would regulate the total group of section 126 sources in the respective State to the same stringency as the Section 126 Rule. If EPA finalizes today's rule revision as proposed and fully approves the Virginia and Ohio SIPs, the Section 126 Rule under the 1hour standard will be withdrawn for sources in those States upon the later of the effective date for the final rule based on today's proposal and the effective date for final SIP approval.
We expect Michigan to submit a Phase 1 SIP shortly. The EPA will address the removal of the Section 126 Rule in Michigan in a separate rulemaking action once EPA receives and proposes action on the Michigan SIP.
The EPA notes that this proposal to withdraw the Section 126 Rule
only affects the portion of the Section 126 Rule based on the 1hour
ozone standard. In evaluating the section 126 petitions, EPA made
separate determinations under the 1hour and 8hour standards. In light
of the litigation on the 8hour standard, EPA previously stayed the 8
hour portion of the Section 126 Rule. Recently, EPA issued its final
response to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remand of the
8hour standard. After a careful review, EPA has reaffirmed the 8hour
ozone standard and is moving forward to implement the standard.
Therefore, EPA will be initiating a rulemaking to lift the 8hour stay
on the Section 126 Rule. In that rulemaking, EPA will complete its action on the 8hour petitions.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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.
Under Executive Order 12866, this proposed action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
review by OMB. The January 2000 Section 126 Rule (65 FR 2674)
establishes control requirements for certain sources in 12 States and
the District of Columbia. The Section 126 Rule contains a provision
under which EPA would withdraw the control requirements in a State if
EPA approves a State plan to control the NO
This proposed action would not create any additional impacts beyond what was promulgated in the January 2000 Rule. This proposed rule also does not raise novel legal or policy issues. Therefore, EPA believes that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action.'' B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Today's action does not propose any new information collection request requirements. Therefore, an information collection request document is not required.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to
the U.S. Small Business Administration size standards for the NAICS
codes listed in the following table; (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; and (3) a small organization that is any notfor
[[Page 16649]]
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
Size
standard
in number
of
NAICS code Economic activity or employees,
industry millions of
dollars of
revenues,
or output
322121............................. Pulp mills............ 750 322122.............................
325211............................. Plastics materials, 750
synthetic resins, and nonvulcanized
elastomers.
325188............................. Industrial organic 1,000 325199............................. chemicals.
324110............................. Petroleum refining.... 1,500
331111............................. Steel works, blast 1,000
furnaces, and rolling mills.
333611............................. Steam, gas, and 1,000 hydraulic turbines.
333618............................. Stationary internal 1,000 combustion engines.
333415............................. Airconditioning and 750 warmair heating
equipment and
commercial and
industrial
refrigeration
equipment.
222111............................. Electric utilities.... \1\ 4 222112.............................
486210............................. Natural gas $6.0 transmission.
221330............................. Steam and air $10.5 conditioning supply.
\1\ Million megawatt hrs.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's proposal, if promulgated, would not create new requirements for small entities or other sources. Instead, this action is proposing to revise the Section 126 Rule to withdraw the section 126 requirements under specified circumstances. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 1044, 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, 2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for any proposed or final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. A ``Federal mandate'' is defined to include a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate'' (2 U.S.C. 658(6)). A ``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)), except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal assistance'' (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(I)). A ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions (2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)).
The EPA has determined that this proposed action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more for either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or for the private sector. This Federal action does not propose any new requirements, as discussed above. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, would result from this action.
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.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed 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. Today's proposed action would
not impose any additional burdens beyond those imposed by the January
2000 Rule. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking 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 6, 2000), requires EPA
[[Page 16650]]
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. If promulgated, it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. As discussed above, today's proposed action would not impose any new requirements that would impose compliance burdens beyond those that would already apply under the January 2000 rule. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: ``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.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, because this action is not ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 and the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Today's action does not propose any new regulatory requirements.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA,'' Pub. L. 104113 section 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 (e.g., 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.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1997 does not apply because today's action does not propose any new technical standards. This action is proposing to amend the January 2000 Rule by specifying circumstances under which the Section 126 requirements would be withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, trading,
Intergovernmental Relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 27, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 52APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AGeneral Provisions
2. Section 52.34 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.34 Action on petitions submitted under section 126 relating to emissions of nitrogen oxides.
* * * * *
(i) Withdrawal of section 126 findings. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subpart, a finding under paragraphs (c), (e)(1) and
(e)(2), (g), and (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this section as to a particular
major source or group of stationary sources in a particular State will
be deemed to be withdrawn, and the corresponding part of the relevant
petition denied, if the Administrator issues a final action approving implementation plan provisions that:
(1) Comply with the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec. 51.121
and 51.122 of this chapter for such State, modified to require
achievement of the emission reductions under Sec. 51.121 of this chapter starting no later than May 31, 2004; or
(2)(i) Comply with the applicable requirements of Sec. Sec. 51.121
and 51.122 of this chapter, except for Sec. 51.121(e) of this chapter,
for such State, modified to require achievement of the emission
reductions under Sec. 51.121 of this chapter starting no later than May 31, 2004, and
(ii) Achieve emissions reductions, from the large EGUs and large
nonEGUs subject to paragraph (j) of this section in such State, that
equal or exceed the emissions reductions otherwise required under Part 97 of this chapter for such State.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 038152 Filed 4303; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Questions concerning today's action should be addressed to Carla Oldham, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, C53902, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 5413347, e mail at oldham.carla@epa.gov.