44620
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
List
of
Subjects
in
33
CFR
Part
165
Harbors,
Marine
safety,
Navigation
(
water),
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Security
measures,
Waterways.


For
the
reasons
discussed
in
the
preamble,
the
Coast
Guard
amends
33
CFR
part
165
as
follows:

PART
165
 
REGULATED
NAVIGATION
AREAS
AND
LIMITED
ACCESS
AREAS

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
165
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1226,
1231;
46
U.
S.
C.
Chapter
701;
50
U.
S.
C.
191,
195;
33
CFR
1.05
 
1(
g),
6.04
 
1,
6.04
 
6,
and
160.5;
Pub.
L.
107
 
295,
116
Stat.
2064;
Department
of
Homeland
Security
Delegation
No.
0170.1.


2.
A
new
temporary
§
165.
T08
 
082
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

§
165.
T08
 
082
Safety
Zone;
Upper
Mississippi
River,
Mile
Marker
51.5
to
52.5,
Cape
Girardeau,
MO.

(
a)
Location.
The
following
area
is
a
safety
zone:
all
waters
of
the
Upper
Mississippi
River
from
mile
marker
51.5
to
52.5,
extending
the
entire
width
of
the
river.
(
b)
Effective
date.
This
rule
is
effective
from
8
a.
m.
on
July
13,
2003
until
5
p.
m.
on
August
15,
2003.
(
c)
Enforcement
period.
This
section
will
be
enforced
from
8
a.
m.
through
5
p.
m.
up
to
3
days
a
week
from
July
13,
2003
through
August
15,
2003.
The
Captain
of
the
Port
Paducah
will
inform
mariners
of
enforcement
periods
by
a
broadcast
notice
to
mariners.
(
c)
Regulations.
(
1)
In
accordance
with
the
general
regulations
in
§
165.23
of
this
part,
entry
into
this
zone
is
prohibited
unless
authorized
by
the
Captain
of
the
Port
Paducah.
(
2)
Persons
or
vessels
requiring
entry
into
or
passage
through
must
request
permission
from
the
Captain
of
the
Port
Paducah,
or
a
designated
representative.
They
may
be
contacted
on
VHF
Channel
13
or
16,
or
by
telephone
at
(
270)
442
 
1621
ext
350.
(
3)
All
persons
and
vessels
shall
comply
with
the
instructions
of
the
Captain
of
the
Port
Paducah
and
designated
on­
scene
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
patrol
personnel.
On­
scene
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
patrol
personnel
include
commissioned,
warrant,
and
petty
officers
of
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard.

Dated:
July
13,
2003.
R.
C.
Johnson,
Commander,
Coast
Guard,
Captain
of
the
Port
Paducah.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
19405
Filed
7
 
29
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4910
 
15
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
52
[
Docket
No.
A
 
90
 
37;
FRL
 
7538
 
1,
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
reconsideration
of
final
rule;
request
for
public
comment;
notice
of
public
hearing.

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.
Today,
the
EPA
is
announcing
our
reconsideration
of
certain
issues
arising
from
the
final
rules
of
December
31,
2002.
We
(
the
EPA)
are
requesting
public
comment
on
six
issues
for
which
we
are
granting
reconsideration.
The
issues
are
described
in
section
IV
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
preamble.
We
plan
to
issue
a
final
decision
on
these
issues
and
other
issues
raised
in
the
various
petitions
by
October
28,
2003.
We
are
only
seeking
comment
on
provisions
of
the
major
NSR
rules
as
specifically
identified
in
this
notice.
We
will
not
respond
to
any
comments
addressing
any
other
provisions
of
the
NSR
rules
or
program.
DATES:
Comments.
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
August
29,
2003.
Public
Hearing.
The
public
hearing
will
convene
at
9
a.
m.
and
will
end
after
all
registered
speakers
have
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
but
no
later
than
10
p.
m.
on
August
14,
2003.
Because
of
the
need
to
resolve
the
issues
raised
in
this
notice
in
a
timely
manner,
EPA
will
not
grant
requests
for
extension
beyond
this
date.
For
additional
information
on
the
public
hearing
and
requesting
to
speak,
see
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
preamble.
ADDRESSES:
Comments.
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail
to
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Room:
B108,
Mail
Code:
6102T,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
E­
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37).
Comments
may
also
be
submitted
electronically,
by
facsimile,
through
hand
delivery/
courier,
or
by
phone.
Public
Hearing.
A
public
hearing
will
be
held
at
the
Sheraton
Imperial
Hotel
&
Convention
Center,
4700
Emperor
Boulevard,
Durham,
North
Carolina
27703,
telephone
(
919)
941
 
5050.

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.

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
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44621
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Industry
group
SIC
a
NAICSb
Pharmaceuticals
.......................................
283
325411,
325412,
325413,
325414
a
Standard
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
that
are
delegated
authority
to
implement
these
regulations.

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,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
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
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
in
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.
For
additional
information
about
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
visit
EPA
Dockets
online
or
see
67
FR
38102,
May
31,
2002.
C.
How
and
to
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
by
facsimile,
through
hand
delivery/
courier,
or
by
phone.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
section
I.
D.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
a.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
either
Docket
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44622
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37
or
E­
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
for
which
A
 
90
 
37
is
now
a
legacy
number).
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
b.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
a­
and­
rdocket
epamail.
epa.
gov,
Attention
EDocket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37).
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
c.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
section
I.
C.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
Mail.
Send
two
copies
of
your
comments
to:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
West
(
Air
Docket),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Room:
B108,
Mail
Code:
6102T,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
EDocket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37).
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
Air
Docket),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Room:
B108,
Mail
Code:
6102T,
Washington,
DC,
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
section
I.
B.
1.
4.
By
Facsimile.
Fax
your
comments
to
the
EPA
Docket
Center
at
(
202)
566
 
1741,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37).
5.
By
Phone.
You
may
call
and
leave
oral
comments
on
a
public
comment
phone
line.
The
number
is
(
919)
541
 
0211.
EPA
will
log
and
place
in
EDocket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37)
any
comments
received
through
this
phone
number.

D.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Mr.
David
Svendsgaard,
c/
o
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C339
 
03),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
E­
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2001
 
0004
(
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37).
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI.
(
If
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI.)
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

E.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments.
 
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.
 
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.
 
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
 
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.
 
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.
 
Offer
alternatives.
 
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.
 
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.
F.
What
Information
Should
I
Know
About
the
Public
Hearing?

The
public
hearing
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
the
issues
raised
in
this
notice.
Person
interested
in
attending
or
presenting
oral
testimony
are
encouraged
to
register
in
advance
by
contacting
Ms.
Chandra
Kennedy,
OAQPS,
Integrated
Implementation
Group,
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Integration
Division
(
C339
 
03),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711;
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
5319
or
e­
mail
kennedy.
chandra@
epa.
gov
no
later
than
August
11,
2003.
Presentations
will
be
limited
to
5
minutes
each.
We
will
assign
speaking
times
to
speakers
who
make
a
timely
request
to
speak
at
the
hearing.
We
will
notify
speakers
of
their
assigned
times
by
August
13,
2003.
We
will
attempt
to
accommodate
all
other
persons
who
wish
to
speak,
as
time
allows.
The
EPA's
planned
seating
arrangement
for
the
hearing
is
theater
style,
with
seating
available
on
a
first
come
first
served
basis
for
about
250
people.
Attendees
should
note
that
the
use
of
pickets
or
other
signs
will
not
be
allowed
on
hotel
property.
As
of
the
date
of
this
announcement,
the
Agency
intends
to
proceed
with
the
hearing
as
announced;
however,
unforeseen
circumstances
may
result
in
a
postponement.
Therefore,
members
of
the
public
who
plan
to
attend
the
hearing
are
advised
to
contact
Ms.
Chandra
Kennedy
at
the
above
referenced
address
to
confirm
the
location
and
date
of
the
hearing.
You
may
also
check
our
New
Source
Review
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nsr
for
any
changes
in
the
date
or
location.
The
record
for
this
action
will
remain
open
until
September
15,
2003
to
accommodate
submittal
of
information
related
to
the
public
hearing.

G.
Where
Can
I
Obtain
Additional
Information?

In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
notice
is
also
available
on
the
World
Wide
Web
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature
by
the
EPA
Administrator,
a
copy
of
today's
notice
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)
541
 
5384.

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44623
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
The
December
31,
2002
first
rules
did
not
act
on
several
issues
proposed
in
1996.
We
intend
to
act
on
some
or
all
issues
from
the
1996
proposal
in
a
subsequent
Federal
Register
notice.
2
Petitions
for
reconsideration
of
the
December
31,
2002
final
rule
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
petitions
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)
Continued
H.
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?
1.
Docket
2.
Electronic
Access
C.
How
and
to
whom
do
I
submit
comments?
1.
Electronically
2.
By
Mail
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier
4.
By
Facsimile
5.
By
Phone
D.
How
should
I
submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?
E.
What
should
I
consider
as
I
prepare
my
comments
for
EPA?
F.
What
information
should
I
know
about
the
public
hearing?
G.
Where
can
I
obtain
additional
information?
H.
How
is
this
preamble
organized?
II.
Background
III.
Today's
Action
A.
Grant
of
Reconsideration
B.
Request
for
Stay
of
Final
Rules
IV.
Discussion
of
Issues
A.
Analysis
of
Environmental
Impact
of
Final
Rule
B.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs)
1.
Background
2.
Emission
Units
for
Which
you
Begin
Actual
Construction
After
Baseline
Period
3.
Elimination
of
Synthetic
Minor
Limits
[(
r)(
4)
Limits]
C.
Actual­
to­
Projected­
Actual
Test
1.
Background
2.
Reasonable
Possibility
3.
Replacement
Units
D.
Clean
Unit
1.
Background
2.
Effect
of
Redesignation
on
Clean
Unit
Status
V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866
 
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
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
VI.
Statutory
Authority
II.
Background
In
the
early
1990'
s,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
we''
or
``
the
Agency'')
began
an
effort
to
revise
the
major
NSR
regulations
to
respond
to
concerns
expressed
by
regulated
industry
and
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
that
the
major
NSR
regulations
were
too
complex
and
burdensome.
This
effort
involved
the
solicitation
of
ideas
and
recommendations
from
the
Clean
Air
Act
Advisory
Committee
and
the
public.
The
goal
of
this
effort,
known
as
NSR
Reform
(
or
NSR
Improvement),
was
to
eliminate
as
much
of
the
program
complexity,
administrative
burden
and
resultant
project
delays
as
possible
without
sacrificing
the
current
level
of
environmental
protection
and
benefits
derived
from
the
program.
On
July
23,
1996
(
61
FR
38250),
we
proposed
changes
to
various
aspects
of
the
NSR
program
based
primarily
on
consideration
of
recommendations
provided
through
the
NSR
Reform
effort,
but
also
based
on
our
own
independent
initiatives
to
further
clarify
the
major
NSR
program.
The
proposed
changes
addressed
baseline
emission
determinations,
actual­
to­
future­
actual
emissions
measurement
methodology,
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs),
Clean
Units,
and
Pollution
Control
Projects
(
PCPs),
as
well
as
other
changes.
Following
the
1996
proposal,
we
held
two
public
hearings
and
more
than
50
stakeholder
meetings.
Environmental
groups,
industry,
and
State,
local,
and
Federal
agency
representatives
participated
in
these
many
discussions.
We
received
several
hundred
public
comments
on
the
1996
proposal
rule.
As
a
result
of
comments
received
and
further
review
of
the
issues
by
the
Agency,
we
sought
further
comment
on
some
issues
in
the
proposed
rule.
On
July
24,
1998,
we
published
a
Federal
Register
Notice
of
Availability
(
NOA)
that
requested
additional
comment
on
three
of
the
proposed
changes
 
baseline
emissions
determination,
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual­
methodology,
and
PALs.
We
received
several
hundred
public
comments
on
the
NOA.
Following
the
NOA,
we
convened
various
stakeholder
meetings
concerning
NSR
Reform
over
a
number
of
years.
Information
on
these
meetings
can
be
found
in
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37.
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,
PALs,
Clean
Units,
and
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
to
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,
the
Administrator
received
numerous
petitions,
filed
pursuant
to
section
307(
d)(
7)(
B)
of
the
CAA,
requesting
reconsideration
of
many
aspects
of
the
final
rules.
2
The
purpose
of
today's
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44624
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
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).
3
In
this
notice,
the
term
``
petitioners''
refers
only
to
those
entities
that
filed
petitions
for
reconsideration
with
EPA.
4
Available
through
our
NSR
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nsr
and
in
docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37,
Document
IV
 
A
 
7.
5
See.
e.
g.,
Environmental
Groups
petition
at
25:
Northeastern
States
petition
at
5,
6.
6
See
Environmental
Groups
petition
at
1,
145;
Northeastern
States
petition
at
47.
7
See
EPA'S
Response
to
Emergency
Motion
For
Stay
of
the
New
Source
Review
Rule
(
Feb.
21,
2003)
(
D.
C.
Cir.
Docket
No.
02
 
1387);
see
also
Supplemental
Analysis
of
the
Environmental
Impact
of
the
2002
Final
NSR
Improvement
Rules
(
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
A
 
90
 
37;
Document
IV
 
A
 
7).
8
If
during
the
course
of
reconsideration
we
determine
that
significant
aspects
of
the
final
NSR
rules
should
be
revised,
we
could
reevaluate
whether
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
rules,
or
portions
thereof,
pending
issuance
of
our
final
decision
on
reconsideration.
notice
is
to
initiate
a
process
for
responding
to
several
issues
raised
in
these
petitions.

III.
Today's
Action
A.
Grant
of
Reconsideration
At
this
time,
we
have
decided
to
grant
reconsideration
on
six
issues
raised
by
petitioners.
3
The
first
involves
a
document
we
released
in
November
2002,
entitled,
``
Supplemental
Analysis
of
the
Environmental
Impact
of
the
2002
Final
NSR
Improvement
Rules.''
4
This
analysis
provides
the
Agency
and
other
interested
parties
with
additional
information
on
the
environmental
effects
of
the
final
rules.
The
analysis
shows
that
the
final
rules
will
result
in
greater
emissions
reductions
than
the
former
program.
Petitioners
assert
that
the
final
rules
are
flawed
because
we
did
not
rely
on
this
document
in
promulgating
the
rule
and
hence
that
we
promulgated
the
final
rule
without
having
adequately
evaluated
its
environmental
impacts.
In
the
alternative,
they
assert
that,
to
the
extent
we
relied
on
the
analysis
for
that
assessment,
we
did
so
improperly
because
we
did
not
make
the
analysis
available
for
public
comment.
Petitioners
further
assert
that
our
analysis
does
not
properly
analyze
the
environmental
effects
of
the
rule
and
did
not
take
into
account
recent
information
about
the
health
impacts
of
air
pollution
and
the
effects
of
the
final
rule
on
air
pollutant
emissions.
5
We
disagree
with
Petitioners'
assertions.
During
the
rulemaking
process,
we
strived
to
take
into
consideration
relevant
and
reliable
information
on
environmental
effects.
We
did
in
fact
take
account
of
environmental
considerations
in
formulating
the
final
rules,
and
believe
the
final
rules
are
properly
supported
and
justified
in
this
regard.
However,
we
want
Petitioners
and
others
to
have
every
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
work
that
we
have
done
to
date
and
to
provide
additional
information
that
they
believe
to
be
relevant
to
the
inquiry.
For
these
reasons,
we
have
chosen
to
grant
the
petitions
as
they
relate
to
these
issues.
In
short,
we
have
no
reason
to
believe
our
analysis
of
environmental
effectiveness
is
incorrect
or
flawed.
Nevertheless,
we
do
think
the
supplemental
analysis
provides
additional
support
for
the
final
rules,
so
we
are
making
it
available
for
public
comment,
and
we
will
reevaluate
our
conclusions
in
light
of
the
comments
and
information
submitted.
The
remaining
issues
for
which
we
grant
reconsideration
involve
five
narrow
aspects
of
the
final
rule.
For
each
of
the
five,
Petitioners
claim
that
the
final
provision
did
not
sufficiently
reflect
the
ideas
set
forth
in
the
proposed
rule
and,
therefore,
that
they
did
not
have
an
adequate
opportunity
to
provide
input
during
the
designated
public
comment
period.
Without
prejudging
the
information
that
will
be
provided
in
response
to
this
notice,
we
note
that
to
date
Petitioners
have
not
provided
information
which
persuades
us
that
our
final
decisions
are
erroneous
or
inappropriate.
While
we
do
not
agree
with
Petitioners'
claim,
we
have
decided
to
grant
reconsideration
on
these
issues
in
an
interest
of
ensuring
a
full
opportunity
for
comment.
Each
of
these
issues
is
described
in
detail
below.
Our
final
decision
on
reconsideration
for
all
the
remaining
issues
in
the
petitions
for
reconsideration
will
be
issued
no
later
than
the
date
by
which
we
take
final
action
on
the
issues
for
which
we
have
decided
to
grant
reconsideration.
We
plan
to
take
final
action
on
all
issues
no
later
than
90
days
after
publication
of
today's
notice.

B.
Request
for
Stay
of
Final
Rules
We
are
not
granting
a
stay
of
the
final
rules
pending
our
reconsideration
of
these
issues.
Under
sections
307(
b)(
1)
and
307(
d)(
7)(
B)
of
the
Act,
the
effectiveness
of
the
final
rules
is
not
automatically
postponed
by
our
granting
the
petitions
for
reconsideration
on
certain
issues.
The
Administrator
(
or
the
court),
however,
may
stay
the
rules
pending
our
reconsideration
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
three
months.
42
U.
S.
C.
7607(
d)(
7)(
B).
Petitioning
States
and
Environmental
Groups
requested
that
we
exercise
our
discretion
under
this
section
and
grant
a
stay
of
the
final
rules
during
reconsideration.
6
We
do
not
believe
that
a
stay
is
warranted.
We
believe
that
the
final
rules
are
a
reasonable
exercise
of
our
discretion
under
the
CAA,
and
will
result
in
greater
emission
reductions
compared
to
the
former
program.
7
Moreover,
although
we
have
decided
to
reconsider
certain
aspects
of
the
final
rules,
at
this
time
we
do
not
have
reason
to
believe
that
the
substantive
decisions
reflected
in
the
final
rule
are
erroneous.
We
are
also
concerned
about
the
impact
of
a
stay
on
facilities
located
in
delegated
States.
The
new
requirements
are
currently
in
effect
in
these
areas.
We
believe
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
revert
to
the
former
program
when
it
is
likely
that
the
current
program
would
be
reinstated
60
to
90
days
later.
Further,
we
do
not
believe
our
decision
to
deny
a
stay
will
have
any
significant
effect
on
facilities
subject
to
a
SIP­
approved
major
NSR
program.
We
have
provided
these
States
up
to
three
years
to
make
appropriate
changes
to
their
SIPapproved
programs.
We
intend
to
complete
our
reconsideration
of
the
final
rules
regarding
the
issues
discussed
in
this
Federal
Register
notice
quickly
(
i.
e.,
in
approximately
90
days),
thus,
any
uncertainty
regarding
the
final
rules
caused
by
our
partial
granting
of
the
petitions
for
reconsideration
will
be
for
a
short
period.
States
will
still
have
ample
time
after
our
final
decision
on
reconsideration
to
revise
their
SIPs
to
implement
the
rule
(
and
any
changes
resulting
from
our
reconsideration).
As
a
result,
we
do
not
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
stay
the
effectiveness
of
the
rule
while
we
address
a
few
issues
raised
in
the
petitions.
8
IV.
Discussion
of
Issues
A.
Analysis
of
Environmental
Impact
of
Final
Rule
In
November
2002,
we
released
a
document
entitled,
``
Supplemental
Analysis
of
the
Environmental
Impact
of
the
2002
Final
NSR
Improvement
Rules.''
As
we
noted
at
that
time,
the
analysis
was
intended
to
provide
the
interested
public
with
supplemental
information
on
the
potential
environmental
effects
of
the
NSR
Improvement
rules
that
we
were
finalizing.
In
the
supplemental
environmental
analysis,
we
found
that
the
overall
effect
of
the
final
rule
would
be
a
net
benefit
to
the
environment
compared
to
the
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44625
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
former
NSR
rules
because
the
final
rule
would
result
in
reductions
in
emissions
of
air
pollution.
We
found
that
four
of
the
five
provisions
in
the
final
rule
would
result
in
environmental
benefits,
and
the
other
provision
would
have
no
significant
effect.
Specifically,
for
each
of
the
rule's
five
provisions,
the
analysis
concludes
the
following:
(
1)
The
PAL
provisions
will
result
in
tens
of
thousands
of
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
reductions
from
just
three
industrial
categories
where
PALs
are
likely
to
be
used
most
often.
Overall
reductions
will
be
greater
because
it
is
likely
that
PALs
also
will
be
adopted
in
other
source
categories.
(
2)
The
Clean
Unit
Test
will
be
environmentally
neutral
for
most
sources,
but
some
sources
will
likely
control
emissions
earlier
or
more
extensively
than
under
the
former
rules,
and,
as
a
result,
a
net
benefit
will
occur.
The
amount
of
this
benefit
is
uncertain
nationally,
but
likely
will
be
significant
in
individual
cases,
like
the
estimated
9,300
tpy
reduction
in
smog­
causing
VOC
seen
in
one
example.
(
3)
The
PCP
Exclusion
will
lead
to
a
small
increase
in
the
number
of
environmentally
beneficial
projects
because
it
removes
NSR
barriers
to
such
projects.
The
amount
of
this
benefit
is
uncertain
nationally,
but
will
likely
be
relatively
small.
(
4)
The
portion
of
the
rule
addressing
baseline
actual
emissions
will
not
have
a
significant
environmental
impact.
The
former
program
already
allowed
sources
to
use
a
more
representative
baseline
period,
with
the
approval
of
the
reviewing
authority,
instead
of
the
twoyear
period
before
the
change
specifically
delineated
in
the
former
rules.
The
final
rules
provide
an
expanded
time
frame
from
which
you
may
select
a
representative
baseline
but
eliminate
the
option
of
going
beyond
this
period
of
time.
While
the
new
rules
may
allow
a
small
number
of
existing
emissions
units
to
use
higher
baselines,
other
units
will
be
required
to
use
lower
baselines
due
to
the
requirement
to
adjust
the
baseline
downward
to
account
for
any
new
emission
limitations
at
that
emissions
unit.
The
changes
overall
impact
will
be
small
because
the
portion
of
the
rule
addressing
baseline
actual
emissions
does
not
affect
new
sources,
new
units
built
at
existing
sources,
electric
utilities,
and
many
modified
sources.
(
5)
The
change
to
the
actual­
toprojected
actual
test
will
have
a
net
environmental
benefit,
but
a
relatively
small
one.
The
benefit
stems
from
removing:
(
1)
Incentives
to
keep
actual
emissions
high
before
making
a
change,
and
(
2)
barriers
to
projects
that
will
reduce
emissions.
The
size
of
this
benefit
nationally
is
uncertain.
Its
impact
would
be
small
because
the
change
in
emissions
calculation
methodology
does
not
affect
either
of
the
following:
(
1)
New
sources,
new
units
built
at
existing
industrial
facilities,
and
electric
utilities,
or
(
2)
any
modifications
at
existing
facilities
that
actually
result
in
significant
increases
in
emissions.
Historically,
under
the
previous
major
NSR
rule,
virtually
all
other
sources
making
a
physical
or
operational
change
have
accepted
``
permit
limits''
so
as
to
be
confident
that
they
will
not
trigger
major
NSR.
Our
analysis
concludes
that
the
benefits
from
this
aspect
of
the
program
are
likewise
largely
unaffected
because
such
sources
must
still
assure
that
actual
emissions
do
not
significantly
increase
as
a
result
of
a
change.
The
supplemental
environmental
analysis
uses
quantitative
information
where
possible
but
also
notes
limitations
on
our
ability
to
quantify
impacts
of
the
rule.
We
used
qualitative
information
to
supplement
the
analysis
when
such
limitations
are
present.
We
also
noted
that
the
final
rules
will
result
in
economic
benefits
that
stem
from
improved
flexibility,
increased
certainty,
and
reduced
administrative
burden.
These
benefits
are
important,
but
were
not
quantified
as
part
of
this
environmental
analysis.
The
analysis
is
available
in
the
docket
for
today's
action
and
is
also
available
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nsr.
We
request
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
environmental
impact
of
the
final
rule.

B.
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitations
(
PALs)

1.
Background
The
December
31,
2002
final
major
NSR
rule
included
an
innovative
approach
to
managing
major
NSR
applicability
at
major
stationary
sources
based
on
actual
plantwide
annual
emissions.
Under
these
provisions,
an
owner
or
operator
(
you)
of
a
major
stationary
source
(
source)
may
elect
to
establish
a
source­
wide
cap
on
emissions,
known
as
a
``
plantwide
applicability
limitation''
(
PAL),
based
on
your
source's
baseline
actual
emissions.
As
long
as
you
do
not
exceed
this
``
actuals
PAL,''
a
significant
emissions
increase
has
not
occurred.
Without
a
significant
emissions
increase,
no
change
at
your
facility
is
considered
a
major
modification,
and
you
are
not
subject
to
major
NSR.
Today,
we
are
soliciting
comment
on
two
aspects
of
the
PAL
final
rules.
These
issues
are
discussed
below.

2.
Emission
Units
for
Which
You
Begin
Actual
Construction
After
the
Baseline
Period
In
general,
the
PAL
level
is
established
as
the
sum
of
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
PAL
pollutant
for
each
emissions
unit
at
your
major
stationary
source.
The
baseline
period
may
be
any
consecutive
24­
month
period
during
the
preceding
10
years,
but
you
must
use
the
same
baseline
period
for
all
existing
emissions
units.
However,
the
final
rules
contain
special
provisions
for
an
emissions
unit
on
which
you
began
actual
construction
after
the
24­
month
baseline
period.
The
reviewing
authority
must
use
the
potential
to
emit
(
PTE)
of
such
emissions
units
in
establishing
the
PAL.
See
40
CFR
51.165(
f)(
6),
51.166(
w)(
6),
52.21(
aa)(
6).
This
provision
is
intended
to
serve
as
a
counterpart
to
the
requirement
to
exclude
from
the
PAL
level
any
emissions
from
emissions
units
that
were
permanently
shut
down
after
the
baseline
period.
We
included
these
provisions
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.
The
actuals
PAL
rule
is
designed
to
ensure
that
the
PAL
level
is
adjusted
to
reflect
the
present­
day
configuration
of
emissions
units
at
your
source.
Thus,
it
instructs
the
reviewing
authority
to
exclude
from
the
PAL
level
emissions
from
permanently
shut
down
units
and
to
add
to
the
PAL
level
the
PTE
of
emissions
units
on
which
you
began
actual
construction
after
the
baseline
period.
We
considered
applying
the
procedures
for
determining
baseline
actual
emissions
at
40
CFR
51.165(
a)(
1)(
xxxv),
51.166(
b)(
47),
and
52.21(
b)(
48);
however,
under
these
procedures
the
baseline
actual
emissions
of
the
existing
emissions
units
on
which
you
began
actual
construction
after
the
selected
baseline
period
would
be
zero.
When
these
procedures
are
used
for
determining
applicability
of
the
major
NSR
requirements,
we
believe
this
is
an
appropriate
outcome
because
such
determinations
ordinarily
involve
a
limited
set
of
emissions
units
(
those
that
are
part
of
a
modification)
at
the
major
stationary
source
and
issues
related
to
start
up
and
shutdown
of
emissions
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44626
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
9
In
1997,
we
conducted
an
informal
review
of
several
State
minor
NSR
programs.
While
this
report
is
still
considered
draft,
it
provides
a
good
overview
of
the
types
ofr
requirements
contained
in
many
State
minor
NSR
requirements
and
serves
to
confirm
our
belief
that
many
projects
that
are
not
subject
to
major
NSR
review
will
be
required
to
comply
with
requirements
under
State
minor
NSR
programs.
We
have
included
a
copy
of
this
draft
report
in
the
docket
for
today's
action
and
invite
comment
on
whether
this
document
accurately
reflects
State
or
local
requirements.
units
are
typically
not
implicated.
You
have
the
ability
to
choose
the
24­
month
baseline
period
that
accommodates
the
integrated
operations
of
this
limited
set
of
emissions
units.
Moreover,
the
baseline
actual
emissions
are
only
used
as
a
measure
to
determine
whether
a
project
will
trigger
major
NSR
review.
It
is
not
used
as
an
enforceable
restriction
on
the
ability
of
the
emissions
units
to
operate.
In
contrast,
setting
a
PAL
involves
all
of
the
emissions
units
at
the
major
stationary
source.
Selecting
a
single
24­
month
period
that
accommodates
the
integrated
operations
of
all
of
these
emissions
units
is
more
difficult
and
will
often
involve
emission
units
that
start
up
or
shut
down
after
the
baseline
period.
Moreover,
establishing
a
baseline
actual
emissions
of
zero
is
an
unrealistic
reflection
of
how
the
emissions
unit
will
be
operated
and
could
require
you
to
unreasonably
restrict
operations
at
the
major
stationary
source
to
ensure
you
comply
with
the
PAL.
We
also
considered
but
rejected
several
other
approaches.
First,
we
considered
requiring
you
to
use
the
immediately
preceding
24
months
to
establish
an
average
annual
emissions
rate
for
such
emissions
units,
or
requiring
all
existing
emissions
units
to
follow
this
approach.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
December
31,
2002
preamble
(
67
FR
80191),
this
approach
does
not
account
for
normal
fluctuations
in
operations
and
may
not
be
representative
of
source
operations.
We
also
considered
making
no
adjustments
for
either
shut
down
emissions
units
or
newly
constructed
emissions
units,
but
this
approach
seemed
to
be
least
representative
of
a
major
stationary
source's
current
operations.
And
finally,
we
considered
allowing
you
to
select
different
24­
month
periods
for
each
existing
emissions
unit
at
the
major
stationary
source
or
allowing
you
to
select
any
24­
month
period
since
operations
began
for
the
recently
constructed
emissions
units.
We
believe
that
the
former
approach
would
unnecessarily
complicate
the
procedures
for
establishing
PALs
and
allow
you
to
inappropriately
maximize
source­
wide
emissions.
The
latter
approach
has
some
advantage
in
that
it
provides
a
measure
of
past
emissions;
however,
we
rejected
this
approach
in
favor
of
using
the
PTE
of
the
emissions
unit.
This
is
because
we
believe
that
most
emissions
units
that
have
been
constructed
after
the
baseline
period
are
likely
to
have
undergone
major
or
minor
NSR
review.
9
Thus,
the
PTE
of
the
emissions
unit
reflects
requirements
to
comply
with
recent
control
technology
requirements
and
other
emission
limitations
that
are
representative
of
how
you
intend
to
actually
operate
the
emissions
unit.
The
past
emissions
of
such
emissions
units,
when
measured
over
a
shortened
period
of
time,
may
not
be
representative
of
intended
operations.
In
view
of
all
of
these
considerations,
we
believe
that
including
the
PTE
of
the
emissions
unit
in
the
PAL
baseline
is
the
most
appropriate
measure
of
actual
operations
of
such
emissions
units
for
the
purpose
of
establishing
an
enforceable
limitation
on
your
operations.
We
believe
such
a
provision
falls
within
the
discussion
of
PALs
in
the
proposed
rule.
Nevertheless,
we
request
comment
on
this
approach,
the
approaches
we
rejected,
and
any
other
method
for
assessing
emissions
from
these
emissions
units.

3.
Elimination
of
Synthetic
Minor
Limits
[(
r)(
4)
Limits]
A
synthetic
minor
limit
is
a
limit
that
is
included
in
a
permit
by
a
reviewing
authority
at
the
request
of
a
source
to
reduce
the
potential
to
emit
(
PTE)
of
a
facility
or
emissions
unit
below
a
level
that
would
otherwise
subject
the
facility
or
emissions
unit
to
some
regulatory
requirement.
Such
limits
are
often
used
by
a
facility
to
reduce
emissions
below
a
level
that
would
subject
a
project
to
the
major
NSR
requirements.
(
They
are
also
used
for
similar
purposes
under
other
regulatory
programs.)
Under
the
major
NSR
program,
we
refer
to
these
emission
or
operational
limitations
as
(
r)(
4)
limits
because
provisions
relating
to
these
types
of
restrictions
are
contained
in
paragraph
(
r)(
4)
of
the
Federal
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
Program.
See
40
CFR
52.21(
r)(
4).
Similar
provisions
are
contained
in
the
requirements
for
State
programs.
See
40
CFR
52.165(
a)(
5)(
ii),
51.166(
r)(
2).
In
the
December
31,
2002
final
rule,
we
specified
that
a
reviewing
authority
can
eliminate
(
r)(
4)
limits
for
a
PAL
pollutant
if
you
previously
took
these
limits
to
avoid
major
NSR.
In
the
absence
of
a
PAL,
relaxation
of
such
limits
would
cause
you
to
determine
major
NSR
applicability
as
if
construction
had
not
yet
commenced
on
the
new
or
modified
emissions
units.
See
40
CFR
52.165(
a)(
5)(
ii),
51.166(
r)(
2),
52.21(
r)(
4).
Under
a
PAL,
such
limits
may
be
relaxed
or
removed
without
triggering
major
NSR
for
the
PAL
pollutant.
67
FR
80210;
40
CFR
165(
f)(
1)(
iii)(
C),
166(
w)(
1)(
ii)(
c),
52.21(
aa)(
1)(
ii)(
c).
The
(
r)(
4)
limits
do
not
reappear
upon
PAL
expiration.
67
FR
80209;
40
CFR
51.165(
f)(
9)(
v),
51.166(
w)(
9)(
v),
52.21(
aa)(
9)(
v).
Instead,
they
are
reapportioned,
along
with
the
PAL,
among
the
existing
emissions
units.
We
believe
the
approach
adopted
in
the
final
rules
reflect
the
purpose
of
a
PAL,
which
is
to
maximize
operational
flexibility
without
sacrificing
environmental
protection.
We
view
the
PAL
as
the
functional
substitute
for
any
unit­
specific
(
r)(
4)
limits
that
you
may
have
taken
to
reduce
emissions
below
a
level
that
would
subject
a
project
to
major
NSR
requirements.
Both
the
PAL
and
the
(
r)(
4)
limits
serve
to
keep
you
from
triggering
major
NSR.
Emissions
from
emissions
units
with
(
r)(
4)
limits
are
incorporated
into
the
PAL
at
a
level
that
is
at
or,
in
most
cases,
below
those
limits.
Therefore,
the
PAL
is
an
effective
substitute
for
those
limits.
More
importantly,
we
believe
that
removal
of
these
limits
is
essential
to
allow
you
to
benefit
from
the
operational
flexibility
and
corresponding
environmental
benefits
that
the
PAL
is
intended
to
provide.
We
considered
reinstating
(
r)(
4)
limits
if
a
PAL
expires.
However,
we
rejected
this
approach
because
we
recognize
that
you
may
have
made
changes
to
the
emissions
unit
or
associated
operations,
and
it
may
not
be
practical
to
return
the
emissions
unit
to
its
pre­
PAL
operations.
Instead,
the
final
rules
ensure
that
the
(
r)(
4)
limitations
that
are
incorporated
into
the
PAL
continue
to
play
a
role
after
PAL
expiration,
although
not
in
the
same
form.
Before
a
PAL
expires,
you
must
submit
a
proposal
for
distributing
the
PAL
among
individual
emissions
units
or
groups
of
emissions
units.
The
reviewing
authority
will
make
the
final
decision
on
PAL
emissions
distribution.
Following
expiration,
you
must
ensure
that
the
individual
emissions
units
or
groups
of
emissions
units
comply
with
their
limits
as
assigned
by
the
reviewing
authority.
In
this
way,
the
emission
restrictions
associated
with
an
(
r)(
4)
limitation
are
accounted
for
after
PAL
expiration.
However,
the
new
emission
limitation(
s)
would
not
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
52.21(
r)(
4).

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44627
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
10
See
57
FR
32314,
July
21,
1992.
This
rule
is
called
the
``
WEPCO
rule''
because
a
court
case
involving
the
Wisconsin
Power
and
Electric
Company
(
WEPCO)
was
the
reason
behind
the
rulemaking.
11
We
use
the
term
``
demand
growth''
to
refer
broadly
to
independent
factors
that
may
cause
remissions
increases
from
an
emission
unit,
but
which
the
emissions
unit
could
have
accommodated
during
the
consecutive
24­
month
period
used
to
establish
the
baseline
actual
emissions,
and
that
are
also
unrelated
to
the
particular
project.
12
If
you
rely
on
potential
emissions
as
a
measure
of
future
emissions,
you
have
no
recordkeeping
requirements
related
to
your
applicability
determination
under
the
final
rules.
We
are
proposing
to
retain
our
approach
for
removing
and
superseding
(
r)(
4)
limits
with
a
PAL.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach.

C.
Actual­
to­
Projected­
Actual
Test
1.
Background
In
1996,
we
proposed
to
allow
use
of
the
``
future­
actual
methodology''
to
compute
whether
a
physical
change
in
or
change
in
the
method
of
operation
of
the
major
stationary
source
would
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
Previously,
this
methodology
was
only
available
to
EUSGUs
under
the
WEPCO
rule.
10
Our
1996
notice
proposed
to
extend
a
version
of
the
WEPCO
rule
to
all
source
categories.
In
that
proposal,
we
sought
comment
on
several
issues
including
whether
the
5­
year
reporting
provision
is
working
as
intended
and
whether
it
should
be
changed
in
any
way.
We
adopted
a
modified
WEPCO
approach
in
the
final
rules.
We
call
this
approach
the
``
actual­
to­
projectedactual
applicability
test.
This
test
is
similar
to
the
WEPCO
rule
in
that
it
allows
you
to
consider
``
demand
growth''
in
determining
post­
change
emissions,
but
it
contains
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
that
differ
from
those
in
the
WEPCO
rule.
11
(
There
are
other
differences
between
the
two
approaches,
but
these
differences
are
not
relevant
to
the
following
discussions.)
Today,
we
are
soliciting
comments
on
an
issue
related
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
under
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test
and
on
allowing
replacement
units
to
use
the
actual­
to­
projected­
actual
applicability
test.
These
issues
are
discussed
below.

2.
Reasonable
Possibility
As
noted
above,
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
final
rules
differ
from
those
in
the
WEPCO
rule.
The
WEPCO
rules
required
EUSGUs
that
relied
on
the
actual­
torepresentative
future­
actual­
annual
emissions
test
to
submit
annual
emission
reports.
In
contrast,
the
final
rules
require
non­
EUSGUs
(
that
project
future
emissions
rather
than
relying
on
potential
emissions
as
a
measure
of
future
emissions)
to:
maintain
certain
records
related
to
the
emissions
projection
and
records
of
the
postchange
emissions
(
for
either
5
years
or
10
years
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
change);
and
report
if
there
is
a
significant
emission
increase
in
postchange
emissions
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
source's
preconstruction
projection.
12
For
EUSGUs
(
that
project
future
emissions
rather
than
relying
on
potential
emissions
as
a
measure
of
future
emissions),
the
final
rules
require
you
to
send
a
copy
of
the
information
to
the
reviewing
authority
that
you
are
required
to
keep
relating
to
your
projection.
However,
all
of
these
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
apply
to
non­
EUSGUs
and
EUSGUs
only
if
there
is
a
``
reasonable
possibility''
that
the
project
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
We
included
these
changes
to
respond
to
comments
we
received
in
response
to
our
request
for
comments
on
whether
the
5­
year
reporting
provisions
of
the
WEPCO
rule
were
working
as
intended
and
whether
these
requirements
should
be
changed.
Some
commenters
indicated
that
the
5­
year
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
were
onerous.
Commenters
also
noted
that
the
requirements
were
unnecessary
because
similar
information
is
available
through
the
title
V
permitting
program
and
State
emission
inventories.
Other
commenters
requested
that
we
retain
an
option
to
use
the
actual­
to­
potential
approach,
which
does
not
require
recordkeeping
or
reporting.
We
retained
that
option
within
the
actual­
toprojected
actual
applicability
test.
In
1998,
we
solicited
additional
comment
on
an
approach
that
would
have
required
you
to
obtain
a
federally
enforceable
permit
to
limit
your
postchange
emissions
to
your
projected
levels
(
the
actual­
to­
future­
enforceableactual
test),
and
again
solicited
comment
on
the
appropriate
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
In
general,
commenters
were
supportive
of
a
5­
year
recordkeeping
requirement.
Responses
were
mixed
as
to
whether
we
should
extend
the
requirement
to
10
years
if
the
permitting
authority
believed
it
appropriate.
Again,
we
received
comments
that
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
were
duplicative
of
those
required
by
other
programs.
Also,
we
received
comments
from
State
agencies
concerned
with
the
resource
burden
that
would
be
imposed
by
requirements
of
the
actual­
to­
futureactual
test.
In
an
effort
to
balance
the
need
for
information
to
determine
compliance
and
the
associated
burden
of
recordkeeping
and
reporting,
we
finalized
the
changes
to
the
proposed
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.
We
included
the
``
reasonable
possibility''
provision
because
we
were
concerned
that
without
some
qualifier
on
when
you
need
to
retain
records
and
report,
our
rules
would
encompass
any
physical
or
operational
change
you
undertake
no
matter
how
inconsequential
and
unlikely
that
an
emissions
increase
would
result.
We
believe
that,
in
some
circumstances,
the
requirements
to
record
and
report
emissions
following
completion
of
certain
types
of
projects
is
a
substantial
strengthening
over
the
former
regulatory
requirements
that
applied
to
non­
EUSGUs.
The
former
rules
contained
no
reporting
or
recordkeeping
requirements
when
you
determined
that
major
NSR
did
not
apply.
For
example,
the
former
rules
allowed
you
to
make
your
own
determination
as
to
whether
major
NSR
applied
to
a
project.
If
you
determined
that
an
emissions
increase
from
a
project
was
less
than
significant,
you
could
proceed
with
the
project,
and
there
were
no
subsequent
recordkeeping
or
reporting
requirements
under
the
major
NSR
program.
The
same
result
occurred
if
you
determined
your
project
would
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase
but
you
were
able
to
``
net''
the
project
out
of
review.
Under
the
revised
rules,
if
you
project
future
emissions
rather
than
relying
on
potential
emissions
as
a
measure
of
future
emissions,
you
(
whether
an
EUSGU
or
non­
EUSGU)
are
required
to
record
and
report
any
project
for
which
you
avoid
the
major
NSR
requirements
through
``
netting,''
because
you
will
have
already
determined
that
such
projects
will
result
in
a
significant
emissions
increase.
We
are
proposing
to
retain
the
``
reasonable
possibility''
requirement
for
triggering
the
applicability
of
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
provisions
discussed
above.
We
believe
these
provisions
are
appropriate
based
on
our
proposal
and
the
comments
received
thereon;
nevertheless,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
this
approach.

3.
Replacement
Unit
The
WEPCO
rule
precluded
use
of
the
actual­
to­
representative­
future­
actualannual
emissions
test
for
replacement
units.
See
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
921)(
v)(
2002).
Although
the
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44628
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1996
preamble
recognized
this
preclusion
in
our
discussion
of
extending
the
WEPCO
rule
to
other
industrial
sectors,
see
62
FR
38267,
the
proposed
regulatory
language
removed
the
preclusion
and
would
have
allowed
all
emissions
units
(
EUSGUs
and
non­
EUSGUs),
including
replacement
units,
to
use
the
actual­
to­
future­
actual
emissions
test.
See
proposed
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
21)(
ii),
61
FR
38338.
In
the
final
rules,
we
concluded
we
should
not
preclude
use
of
the
actualto
projected­
actual
test
either
for
EUSGUs
or
non­
EUSGUs
replacement
units.
We
explained
the
basis
for
our
conclusion
in
the
final
rule.
See
67
FR
80194.
Although
we
discussed
this
issue
in
the
proposal,
we
are
seeking
comment
on
our
determination
on
this
issue
and
the
basis
for
it
set
forth
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rules.

D.
Clean
Unit
1.
Background
Our
December
31,
2002
final
rules
finalize
provisions
that
provide
added
flexibility
to
emissions
units
that
install
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
controls.
Specifically,
we
promulgated
a
new
type
of
major
NSR
applicability
test
for
emissions
units
that
are
designated
as
Clean
Units.
The
Clean
Unit
applicability
test
(``
Clean
Unit
Test'')
measures
whether
an
emissions
increase
occurs,
based
on
whether
a
project
affects
the
Clean
Unit
status
of
the
emissions
unit.
The
Clean
Unit
Test
provides
that
when
you
meet
emission
limitations
based
on
installing
state­
of­
the­
art
emissions
control
technologies
(
add­
on
controls,
pollution
prevention,
or
work
practices)
that
are
determined
to
be
BACT
or
LAER
(
or
comparable
to
BACT
or
LAER),
you
may
make
any
physical
or
operational
change
to
the
unit
without
triggering
major
NSR,
provided
that
the
change
does
not
(
1)
necessitate
a
revision
in
the
emission
limitations
or
work
practice
requirements
in
the
permit
for
the
unit
that
were
adopted
in
conjunction
with
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determinations;
or
(
2)
alter
any
physical
or
operational
characteristics
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
BACT,
LAER,
or
Clean
Unit
determination
for
the
unit.
Today,
we
are
requesting
comment
on
one
aspect
of
the
final
rules
for
Clean
units.
This
issue
is
discussed
below.

2.
Effect
of
Redesignation
on
Clean
Unit
Status
The
final
rules
allow
you
to
maintain
Clean
Unit
status
at
an
emissions
unit
even
if
the
area
in
which
you
are
located
was
attainment
for
the
pollutant
at
the
time
the
emissions
unit
was
designated
clean
but
is
subsequently
redesignated
to
nonattainment.
Our
1996
proposal
did
not
specifically
address
this
issue.
It
did,
however,
propose
that
Clean
Unit
status
would
presumptively
apply
for
the
10
years
following
issuance
of
the
major
NSR
permit,
and
it
did
not
indicate
that
the
presumption
would
be
revoked
if
the
area
was
redesignated.
Therefore,
we
believe
a
natural
implication
of
the
proposal
is
that
the
Clean
Unit
status
would
presumptively
continue
to
apply
even
if
the
area
were
redesignated.
We
continue
to
believe
that
you
should
be
allowed
to
maintain
your
Clean
Unit
status
even
if
your
area
is
redesignated
from
attainment
to
nonattainment
for
the
pollutant
for
which
your
emissions
unit
is
designated
clean.
This
approach
is
most
consistent
with
our
current
practices
and
fundamental
to
the
policy
of
creating
incentives
to
reduce
emissions.
As
a
general
rule,
permitting
decisions
are
not
per
se
invalid,
or
retroactively
changed
by
virtue
of
a
change
in
an
area's
attainment
status.
For
example,
we
do
not
require
sources
that
have
applied
BACT
to
upgrade
controls
to
comply
with
LAER
or
obtain
offsets
when
an
area's
designation
changes.
Moreover,
a
fundamental
premise
in
creating
the
Clean
Unit
Test
is
to
provide
you
with
an
incentive
to
install
better
emissions
control
technologies
even
when
there
is
no
State,
local
or
Federal
regulation
requiring
this
level
of
control.
We
believe
that
this
incentive
will
be
undermined
if
you
are
unable
to
know
with
certainty
that
the
added
flexibility
will
be
available
to
you
for
the
full
10­
year
period.
We
also
believe
that
this
approach
is
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act.
The
requirements
of
section
173
of
the
Act,
including
the
requirements
to
apply
LAER
and
obtain
offsets,
apply
only
if
a
project
will
result
in
an
emissions
increase.
As
long
as
an
emissions
unit
maintains
its
status
as
a
Clean
Unit,
it
has
not
increased
emissions.
Thus,
the
provisions
of
section
173
do
not
apply
to
such
emissions
units.
Finally,
because
States
will
have
established
the
Clean
Units
either
through
the
major
NSR
permitting
process
or
another
permitting
process,
the
State
will
be
aware
of
which
emissions
units
qualify
as
Clean
Units
at
the
time
an
area
is
redesignated.
Thus,
States
that
are
concerned
that
Clean
Units
may
have
adverse
impact
on
their
attainment
demonstrations
if
the
full
effect
of
their
potential
emissions
is
realized
are
able
to
make
appropriate
adjustments
in
their
attainment
demonstrations
to
account
for
these
permitted
emissions.
In
this
respect,
we
believe
that
the
Clean
Unit
Test
provides
States
with
a
better
planning
tool
than
may
otherwise
exist
in
the
absence
of
the
Clean
Unit
Test.
As
noted
above,
we
proposed
in
1996
that
an
emission
unit's
Clean
Unit
status
would
remain
in
place
for
10
years,
and
implicitly
indicated
that
nonattainment
redesignation
would
not
affect
the
unit's
status
during
that
10
years.
We,
however,
request
comment
on
this
approach
and
the
rationale
set
forth
above.

V.
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
proposing
no
changes
to
the
final
rules,
and
are
seeking
additional
comments
on
some
of
the
provisions
finalized
in
the
December
2002
Federal
Register
notice
(
67
FR
80186).
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
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44629
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
proposing
any
new
paperwork
(
e.
g.,
monitoring,
reporting,
recordkeeping)
as
part
of
today's
notice.
With
this
action
we
are
seeking
additional
comments
on
some
of
the
provisions
finalized
in
the
December
2002
Federal
Register
Notice
(
67
FR
80186).
However,
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
Ave.,
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
Act
(
RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
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
today's
notice
on
small
entities,
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
notice
on
small
entities,
I
certify
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.
sections
603
and
604.
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
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.
We
do
not
expect
that
today's
action
will
change
our
overall
assessment
of
regulatory
burden
so
substantially
as
to
result
in
a
significant
adverse
impact
on
any
source.
As
a
result,
we
do
not
expect
that
today's
action
will
result
in
a
significant
adverse
impact
on
any
small
entity.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
today's
action
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
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
cost
effective
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
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44630
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
today's
notice
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.
Because
we
are
proposing
no
changes
to
the
final
rule,
we
believe
that
the
same
is
true
for
today's
notice.
It
is
highly
unlikely
that
today's
action
would
increase
regulatory
burden
to
the
extent
of
requiring
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
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
notice
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.
Because
we
are
proposing
no
changes
to
the
final
rules,
we
do
not
expect
that
today's
notice
would
increase
regulatory
burden
to
the
extent
that
it
would
result
in
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
today's
notice.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
today's
action
from
State
and
local
officials.

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
be
the
benefit
of
the
added
certainty
and
flexibility
provided
by
that
rule.
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
we
do
not
believe
that
any
changes
resulting
from
today's
notice
would
increase
burden
for
tribal
governments.
In
addition,
we
do
not
anticipate
that
any
such
changes
would
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
sources
located
in
or
near
Indian
country
or
sources
owned
or
operated
by
tribal
governments.
EPA
specifically
solicits
additional
comment
on
today's
notice
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
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
52
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
44631
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
146
/
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
notice
is
not
expected
to
change
substantially
the
level
of
environmental
protection
provided
by
the
December
31,
2002
final
rule,
and
as
a
result,
it
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
notice
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.
We
do
not
expect
that
today's
action
would
result
in
changes
to
the
final
rules
that
are
so
substantial
as
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
No.
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
notice
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

VI.
Statutory
Authority
The
statutory
authority
for
this
action
is
provided
by
sections
307(
d)(
7)(
B),
101,
111,
114,
116,
and
301
of
the
CAA
as
amended
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
7411,
7414,
7416,
and
7601).
This
notice
is
also
subject
to
section
307(
d)
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7407(
d)).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
52
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
BACT,
Baseline
emissions,
Carbon
monoxide,
Clean
Units,
Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental
relations,
LAER,
Lead,
Major
modifications,
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ozone,
Particulate
matter,
Plantwide
applicability
limitations,
Pollution
control
projects,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Sulfur
oxides.

Dated:
July
25,
2003.
Jeffrey
Holmstead,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
19356
Filed
7
 
29
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
TX
 
164
 
1
 
7602a;
FRL
 
7536
 
8]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plans;
Texas;
Control
of
Emission
of
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
From
Cement
Kilns
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Direct
final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
taking
direct
final
action
on
revisions
to
the
Texas
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP).
These
revisions
concern
Control
of
Air
Pollution
from
Nitrogen
Compounds,
Cement
Kilns.
The
EPA
is
approving
these
SIP
revisions
for
cement
kilns
as
they
will
contribute
to
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
National
Ambient
Air
quality
Standards
(
NAAQS).
The
EPA
is
approving
emissions
of
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
(
NOX)
for
cement
kilns
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Federal
Clean
Air
Act
(
the
Act).
DATES:
This
rule
is
effective
on
September
29,
2003
without
further
notice,
unless
EPA
receives
adverse
comment
by
August
29,
2003.
If
EPA
receives
such
comment,
EPA
will
publish
a
timely
withdrawal
in
the
Federal
Register
informing
the
public
that
this
rule
will
not
take
effect.
ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
on
this
action
should
be
addressed
to
Mr.
Thomas
H.
Diggs,
Chief,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD
 
L),
at
the
EPA
Region
6
Office
listed
below.
Electronic
comments
should
be
sent
either
to
Diggs.
Thomas@
epa.
gov
or
to
http://
www.
regulations.
gov,
which
is
an
alternative
method
for
submitting
electronic
comments
to
EPA.
To
submit
comments,
please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
described
in
Final
Action
part
of
this
document.
Copies
of
the
Technical
Support
Document
(
TSD)
and
other
documents
relevant
to
this
action
are
available
for
public
inspection
during
normal
business
hours
at
the
following
locations.
Anyone
wanting
to
examine
these
documents
should
make
an
appointment
with
the
appropriate
office
at
least
two
working
days
in
advance.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
6,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD­
L),
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Dallas,
Texas
75202
 
2733.
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
TCEQ),
Office
of
Air
Quality,
12124
Park
35
Circle,
Austin,
Texas
78753.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Alan
Shar,
Air
Planning
Section
(
6PD
 
L),
EPA
Region
6,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Dallas,
Texas
75202
 
2733,
telephone
(
214)
665
 
6691,
and
shar.
alan@
epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Table
of
Contents
1.
What
Actions
Are
We
Taking
in
This
Document?
2.
Why
Are
We
Approving
These
SIP
Revisions
for
Texas?
3.
What
Is
NOX?
4.
What
Is
a
SIP?
5.
What
Are
the
Existing
NOX
Emissions
Specifications
in
the
Texas
SIP?
6.
What
Do
These
Rule
Revisions
for
Cement
Kilns
That
We
Are
Approving
Provide?
7.
What
Areas
In
Texas
Will
These
Rules
Affect?

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
17:
06
Jul
29,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
30JYR1.
SGM
30JYR1
