40560 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Docket Management

Facility at 202–493–2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

You may also mail comments on

collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this proposed rule, call Mr.

James M. Magill, Vessel and Facility

Operating Standards Division (G–MSO–

2), telephone 202–267–1082 or fax 202–

267–4570. For questions on viewing or

submitting material to the docket, call

Ms. Dorothy Beard, Chief of Dockets,

Department of Transportation,

telephone 202–366–9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) on Outer Continental Shelf

Activities, published on December 7,

1999 (64 FR 68416), encouraged

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments by April 5, 2000. It

also invited comments on collection-ofinformation requirements to be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) by February 7, 2000.

We received a request to extend both of

those dates to July 5, 2000, and did so

by a notice of extension (65 FR 14226,

March 16, 2000). As a result of several

requests since that notice of extension,

we are again extending both dates until

November 30, 2000.

Persons submitting comments should

include their names and addresses,

identify this docket (USCG–1998–3868)

and the specific section of the NPRM to

which each comment applies, and give

the reason for each comment. You may

submit your comments and material by

mail, hand delivery, fax, or electronic

means to the Docket Management

Facility at the address under

ADDRESSES; but please submit your

comments and material by only one

means. If you submit them by mail or

hand delivery, submit them in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit them by

mail and would like to know they

reached the Facility, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this NPRM in

view of them.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director of Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 00–16658 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–062–7221; A–1–FRL–6727–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Connecticut; Post-1996 Rate-ofProgress Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut. The revisions establish

post-1996 rate-of-progress plans,

including minor adjustments to the

1990 base year inventory, for the Greater

Hartford serious ozone nonattainment

area, and for the Connecticut portion of

the New York, New Jersey, Connecticut

(NY–NJ–CT) severe ozone

nonattainment area. The intended effect

of this action is to propose approval of

these SIP revisions as meeting the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 31, 2000.

Public comments on this document are

requested and will be considered before

taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David B. Conroy, Chief, Air Quality

Planning Unit (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, Boston,

MA 02114–2023. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA, and at the

Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Air Management,

79 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert McConnell, (617) 918–1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Why was Connecticut required to reduce

its emissions of ozone forming pollutants?

C. Which specific air pollutants are

targeted by Connecticut’s plans?

D. What are the sources of these

pollutants?

E. What harmful effects can these

pollutants produce?

F. Should I be concerned if I live near an

industry that emits a significant amount of

these pollutants?

G. To what degree do Connecticut’s plans

reduce emissions?

H. What changes were made to

Connecticut’s base year inventory?

I. How will Connecticut achieve these

emission reductions?

J. Have these emission reductions

improved air quality in Connecticut?

K. Connecticut is downwind of many large

metropolitan areas. Do pollutants emitted in

other States affect air quality in Connecticut?

L. EPA recently required 22 eastern states,

including Connecticut, to develop plans that

will significantly reduce nitrogen oxide

emissions. Given that requirement, why is

approval of these plans needed?

M. Has Connecticut met its contingency

measure obligation?

N. Are conformity budgets contained in

these plans?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is proposing approval of post1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) emission

reduction plans, and minor revisions to

the 1990 base year inventory, submitted

by the State of Connecticut for the

Greater Hartford serious ozone

nonattainment area, and the

Connecticut portion of the NY–NJ–CT

severe ozone nonattainment area, which

is a multi-state ozone nonattainment

area, as revisions to Connecticut’s SIP.

Connecticut did not enter into an

agreement with New York and New

Jersey to do a multi-state ROP plan, and

therefore submitted a plan to reduce

emissions only in the Connecticut

portion of this area. EPA is proposing

action today only on the Connecticut

portion of the NY–NJ–CT post-1996

plan.

The post-1996 ROP plans document

how Connecticut complied with the

provisions of section 182(c)(2) of the

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). These

sections of the Act require states

containing certain ozone nonattainment

areas develop strategies to reduce

emissions of the pollutants that react to

form ground level ozone.

B. Why Was Connecticut Required To

Reduce Its Emissions of Ozone Forming

Pollutants?

Connecticut was required to develop

plans to reduce ozone precursor

emissions because it contains ozone

nonattainment areas. A final rule

published by EPA on November 6, 1991

(56 FR 56694) designated portions of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40561

Fairfield and Litchfield counties, and all

of Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven,

New London, Tolland and Windham

counties a serious ozone nonattainment

area. This area is referred to as the

Greater Hartford area. Additionally, the

November 6, 1999 document designated

portions of Fairfield and Litchfield

counties a severe ozone nonattainment

area. This area is referred to as the

Connecticut portion of the NY–NJ–CT

area, or as Connecticut’s severe area.

Section 182(c)(2) of the Act requires

that serious, severe, and extreme ozone

nonattainment areas develop ROP plans

to reduce ozone forming pollutant

emissions by 3 percent a year, averaged

over each consecutive 3 year period

beginning 6 years after the date of the

enactment of the 1990 amendments to

the Act, until the area reaches its

attainment date. The first set of

emission reductions are required to

occur between November 1996 and

November 1999, and are referred to as

post-1996 ROP plan reductions.

C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are

Targeted by Connecticut’s Plans?

Connecticut’s post-1996 plans are

geared towards reducing emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and

nitrogen oxides (NOX). These

compounds react in the presence of heat

and sunlight to form ozone, which is a

primary ingredient of smog.

D. What Are the Sources of These

Pollutants?

VOCs are emitted from a variety of

sources, including motor vehicles, a

variety of consumer and commercial

products such as paints and solvents,

chemical plants, gasoline stations, and

other industrial sources. NOX is emitted

from motor vehicles, power plants, and

other sources that burn fossil fuels.

E. What Harmful Effects Can These

Pollutants Produce?

VOCs and NOX react in the

atmosphere to form ozone, the prime

ingredient of smog in our cities and

many rural areas of the country. Though

ozone occurs naturally high in our

atmosphere, at ground level it is the

prime ingredient of smog. When

inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone

can:

Cause acute respiratory problems;

Aggravate asthma;

Cause significant temporary decreases

in lung capacity in some healthy adults;

Cause inflammation of lung tissue;

Lead to hospital admissions and

emergency room visits; and

Impair the body’s immune system

defenses.

F. Should I Be Concerned if I Live Near

an Industry That Emits a Significant

Amount of These Pollutants?

Industrial facilities that emit large

amounts of these pollutants are

monitored by Connecticut’s

environmental agency, the Department

of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Many facilities are required to emit air

pollutants through stacks to ensure that

high concentrations of pollutants do not

exist at ground level. Permits issued to

these facilities include information on

which pollutants are being released,

how much may be released, and what

steps the source’s owner or operator is

taking to reduce pollution. The

Connecticut DEP makes permit

applications and permits readily

available to the public for review. You

can contact the Connecticut DEP for

more information about air pollution

emitted by industrial facilities in your

neighborhood.

G. To What Degree Do Connecticut’s

Plans Reduce Emissions?

By 1999, Connecticut’s plans will

reduce VOC emissions by 26 percent

and NOx emissions by 19 percent

compared to 1990 emission levels. This

reduction is attributable to the control

strategy outlined in the State’s post1996 plans, and in Connecticut’s 15

percent ROP plans for the years 1990 to

1996. EPA approved the 15 percent ROP

plans on March 10, 1999 (64 FR 12015).

Connecticut used the appropriate EPA

guidance to calculate the 1999 VOC and

NOx emission target levels, and the

amount of reductions needed to achieve

its emission target levels. EPA notes that

in addressing photochemically nonreactive VOC’s, Connecticut should

have removed acetone from its base year

inventory in addition to

perchloroethylene. Although removing

acetone from the inventory makes a very

small change to the overall base year

calculation, acetone represents a

substantial portion of the VOC emission

factors Connecticut used to develop

base year inventory estimates for the

surface coating and graphic arts area

source emission categories. Proper

characterization of these source

categories is particularly important

because Connecticut claims emission

reduction credit from federal rules that

limit emissions from architectural

industrial maintenance coatings, and

automobile refinishing coatings.

EPA has determined that if

Connecticut had excluded acetone from

its base year and projected, controlled

emission estimates, the net impact

would be 0.3 tons per summer day

(tpsd) fewer emission reduction credits

claimed for the severe area, and 0.9 tpsd

fewer emission reduction credits

claimed for the serious area. EPA is

asking that Connecticut confirm in

writing their agreement with this

adjustment to the inventory, or submit

to EPA new emission estimates that

correctly remove acetone from the

calculations. EPA believes that this

adjustment in Connecticut’s inventory

constitutes a de minimis change. This

adjustment changes Connecticut’s 1999

target level by less than 0.5 percent, and

has no impact on the associated control

strategy. Therefore, Connecticut is not

required to put this inventory

adjustment for acetone out to public

hearing.

Table 1 illustrates the steps used by

Connecticut to derive its 1999 emission

target levels for VOC and NOX. The VOC

emission values shown in parenthesis

are EPA’s calculation of what the proper

emission values would be if acetone

were removed from the area source

categories mentioned above. The ROP

plans submitted by Connecticut indicate

that 1999 projected, controlled

emissions are below the target levels for

the Greater Hartford area and the

Connecticut portion of the NY–NJ–CT

nonattainment area. Although EPA’s

calculations indicate that proper

adjustment of the base year inventory to

exclude acetone results in VOC

emissions that slightly exceed the

required target level in each

nonattainment area, there are

substantial surplus NOX emission

reductions well below the NOX target

level that readily yield the emission

reductions needed for Connecticut to

meet its ROP targets in the aggregate.

TABLE 1

Description

NY–NJ–CT NY–NJ–CT Hartford Hartford

VOC NOX VOC NOX

Step 1: 1990 Inventory ................................... 183.8 .......................... 116.9 .......................... 794.2 .......................... 346.7

40562 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—Continued

Description

NY–NJ–CT NY–NJ–CT Hartford Hartford

VOC NOX VOC NOX

Step 2: Rate-of Progress Inventory

(biogenics and non-reactives subtracted).

128.2 (126.1) ............. 116.9 .......................... 408.1 (402.3) ............. 346.7

Step 3: non-creditable reductions 1 ................ 8.2 (1.4 of which occurs between 1996–

1999).

10.0 ............................ 24.2 (4.4 of which occurs between 1996–

1999).

32.4

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (State

will use both VOC and NOX rdxns. to meet

post-1996 ROP, as shown).

6.26%, 7.5 (7.4) ......... 2.74%, 2.9 .................. 3.76%, 14.4 (14.2) ..... 5.24%, 16.5

Step 5: Calculate Total Expected Reductions

(sum of non-creditable and required 9%

reduction.) 2.

1.4+7.5=8.9 (8.8) ....... 10.0+2.9=12.9 ............ 4.4+14.4=18.8 (18.6) 32.4+16.5=48.9

Step 6: Set Target Level for 1999 3 ............... 92.9 (93.0) ................. 104.0 .......................... 306.9 (307.1) ............. 297.9

Step 7: Projected, Controlled Emissions for

1999.

92.9 (93.3) ................. 86.5 ............................ 306.9 (308.0) ............. 290.9

1States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emission standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline promulgated

prior to 1990. 2For VOC, only the FMVCP reductions that accrue between 1996 and 1999 are included in Step 5 because the increment that accrues between 1990 and 1996 is accounted for in development of the 1996 VOC emission target levels. 3For NOX, target level = Step 2¥Step 5. For VOC, target level=1996 targets (101.8 for NY–NJ–CT area, 325.7 for Greater Hartford area) ¥

Step 5.

Connecticut projected its base year

emissions to 1999 using growth factors

from a variety of sources, including the

U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau

of Economic Analysis, and Connecticut

State offices of the Department of Labor,

Office of Policy and Management, and

Department of Transportation.

H. What Changes Were Made to

Connecticut’s Base Year Inventory?

Connecticut made two changes to its

base year emission estimates. The first

change was a minor revision made to

the State’s on-road motor vehicle

estimate. Connecticut recalculated base

year emissions using the most current

version of the mobile model (MOBILE

5b), and also changed the evaluation

date to January 1, 1991 to maintain

consistency with the evaluation date

chosen for its on-road motor vehicle

projection, which was January 1, 2000.

The second change made was a 3.1 tpsd

decrease to the NOX base year emission

estimate for a facility operated by

Connecticut Light and Power, which is

located in the Greater Hartford area, due

to a re-evaluation of this facility’s

emissions. These changes are reflected

in the 1990 inventory estimates shown

in Table 1 above. EPA approved the

Connecticut 1990 base year inventory

on October 24, 1997 (62 FR 55336), and

proposes to approve these de minimis

revisions to Connecticut’s inventory.

I. How Will Connecticut Achieve These

Emission Reductions?

Connecticut’s post-1996 control

strategy matches the control strategy

described in the EPA’s March 10, 1999

approval of the Connecticut 15 percent

plans, and also includes additional

emission reductions from regulations

limiting NOX emissions from stationary

point sources, VOC and NOX emission

reductions from federal measures

limiting emissions from non-road

engines promulgated between 1996 and

1999, and VOC and NOX reductions

from the on-road mobile sector

attributable to the State’s Low Emission

Vehicle program. These additional

control programs are further described

below.

NOX RACT

Connecticut has adopted a NOX RACT

regulation, the citation for which is 22a–

174–22 of the Regulations of

Connecticut State Agencies. Facilities

covered by the rule needed to comply

by May of 1995. Connecticut submitted

the rule to EPA on May 29, 1994, as a

revision to the State’s SIP, and amended

the rule in 1997. EPA approved

Connecticut’s NOX RACT rule on

October 6, 1997 (62 FR 52016).

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)

Phase II NOX Requirements

Connecticut adopted a Phase II OTC

NOX budget rule on March 3, 1999.

Facilities covered by the rule needed to

comply by the 1999 ozone season.

Connecticut submitted this rule to EPA

on July 27, 1999, as a revision to the

State’s SIP. EPA approved the state’s

submittal in a direct final action

published in the Federal Register on

September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233).

Connecticut applied a rule

effectiveness value of 80% in

determining emission reductions from

the two NOX point source

controlmeasures listed above. The state

determined that by 1999, these two

rules will achieve 35.4 tpsd in emission

reductions statewide.

Federal Non-Road Standards

In the June 17, 1994 Federal Register

(59 FR 31306), EPA established a

regulation setting final emission

standards for new heavy duty

compression ignition (diesel) engines.

These rules adopt NOX and smoke

standards for large (>50 HP) non-road

diesel engines. Additionally, in the July

3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581),

EPA promulgated the first phase of the

regulations to control emissions from

new non-road spark-ignition engines.

The regulation is found at 40 CFR part

90, and is titled, ‘‘Control of Emissions

From Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines.’’

Connecticut correctly applied guidance

contained in a November 28, 1994 EPA

memorandum pertaining to the federal

non-road engine control program to

determine the VOC and NOX emission

reductions that will occur in the State.

The sale of reformulated gasoline in

Connecticut also reduces non-road

emissions in the State. The combined

effect of reformulated gasoline and the

new non-road standards will lower VOC

emissions by 3.7 tpsd in the severe area,

and 13.9 tpsd in the serious area. NOX

emissions will be lower by 0.9 tpsd in

the severe area, and by 5.4 tpsd in the

serious area.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40563

Connecticut National Low Emission

Vehicle Program

Connecticut submitted a National

Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program

to EPA on February 7, 1996, and

February 18, 1999. The NLEV program

allows auto manufacturers to commit to

meet tailpipe standards for cars and

light-duty trucks that are more stringent

than EPA can mandate. EPA approved

the State’s NLEV program on March 9,

2000 (65 FR 12476).

The Connecticut ROP plans

demonstrate that the VOC and NOX

emission reductions from the control

strategy will achieve sufficient emission

reductions to lower 1999 emission

levels below the target levels calculated

for each pollutant.

J. Have These Emission Reductions

Improved Air Quality in Connecticut?

Ozone levels have decreased in

Connecticut during the 1990’s, due in

part to emission reductions achieved by

the State’s plans. Pollution control

measures implemented by States

upwind of Connecticut have also helped

ozone levels decline in the State.

K. Connecticut Is Downwind of Many

Large Metropolitan Areas. Do

Pollutants Emitted in Other States

Affect Air Quality in Connecticut?

The pollutants that form ground level

ozone can be transported hundreds of

miles, and so pollutants emitted in other

States can adversely impact air quality

in Connecticut. Air pollution emitted

from sources in Connecticut contribute

to the State’s air quality problems, and

can also negatively impact air quality in

areas downwind of Connecticut. Air

quality modeling performed by the New

England States and by the Ozone

Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)

indicates that ozone levels in

Connecticut are highest when winds are

from the south-west, which supports the

conclusion that air quality in

Connecticut is negatively impacted by

the large metropolitan areas downwind

of the state.

L. EPA Recently Required 22 Eastern

States, Including Connecticut, To

Develop Plans That Will Significantly

Reduce Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.

Given That Requirement, Why Is

Approval of These Plans Needed?

The rate-of-progress plans prepared

by Connecticut and other states with

ozone nonattainment areas have helped

lower ozone levels. Approval of these

plans by EPA, and the pollution control

measures associated with them, is

required by the CAA and will ensure

that improvements made in air quality

are maintained. Additionally, approval

of the regulations associated with them

make the rules enforceable by EPA.

Despite the emission reductions

achieved through implementation of

rate-of-progress plans, many areas of the

country still do not meet the one hour

ozone standard. The modeling done by

the OTAG for the eastern half of the

United States indicates that the long

distance transport of nitrogen oxides

across state borders will prevent many

areas from attaining this standard by

relying solely on emission reductions

from within their borders. The NOX SIP

call, which was published as a final rule

on October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356),

required large NOX emission reductions

across the eastern half of the United

States. On May 26, 1999, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

ordered that the EPA suspend

implementation of the NOX SIP call

pending consideration of a lawsuit that

has challenged its requirements.

However, on December 17, 1999, EPA

granted petitions filed by four

northeastern states seeking to reduce

ozone pollution through reductions in

nitrogen oxide emissions from other

states. As a result of that action, 392

facilities in 12 states will have to

significantly curtail their NOX

emissions. Additionally, on March 3,

2000, the Federal Court of Appeals for

the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling generally

supportive of EPA’s original NOX SIP

call.

As previously mentioned, these ROP

plans are required by the CAA.

Combined with the NOX emission

reductions EPA plans to achieve in upwind states, these ROP plans should

assure progress toward attaining the one

hour ozone standard in Connecticut.

M. Has Connecticut Met Its Contingency

Measure Obligation?

Ozone nonattainment areas classified

as serious or above must submit to the

EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the Act, contingency

measures to be implemented if an area

misses an ozone SIP milestone or does

not attain the national ambient air

quality standard by the applicable date.

Table 1 indicates that Connecticut’s

post-1996 ROP plans achieve surplus

NOX emission reductions. Surplus

amounts are calculated by subtracting

the NOX target levels in step 6 from the

NOX projected, controlled emission

levels in step 7. The 17.5 tpsd surplus

reductions achieved in the State’s

portion of the NY–NJ–CT area covers

the 3.2 tpsd reduction needed to meet

contingency requirements for this area,

but the 7 tpsd surplus reductions for the

Greater Hartford area do not cover the

9 tpsd contingency obligation for that

area.

Connecticut’s contingency plan

proposes that 2 tons of excess NOX

emission reductions achieved in the

severe area be applied in the serious

area to complete that area’s contingency

obligation. EPA believes this is an

appropriate substitution, as the serious

area is immediately downwind of the

severe area. Additionally, guidance

issued by EPA titled, ‘‘Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and

Pre-existing PM10 National Ambient Air

Quality Standards’ includes a policy

recommendation that substitution of

emission reduction credits from outside

of the nonattainment area for ROP

purposes be allowed if certain criteria

are met. Connecticut’s proposed

emission reduction substitution meets

the criteria outlined in that guidance.

EPA notes that the minor amount of

emission reduction credit overestimation made by Connecticut due to

the failure to remove acetone from the

base year inventory creates minor VOC

shortfalls of 0.3 tpsd in the severe area

and 0.9 tpsd in the serious area.

However, the large NOX surplus that

exists in each area readily compensates

for this.

N. Are Conformity Budgets Contained

in These Plans?

Section 176(c) of the Act, and 40 CFR

51.452(b) of the Federal transportation

conformity rule require states to

establish motor vehicle emissions

budgets in any control strategy SIP that

is submitted for attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS.

Connecticut will use such budgets to

determine whether proposed projects

that attract traffic will ‘‘conform’’ to the

emissions assumptions in the SIP.

The December 31, 1997 post-1996 rate

of progress plan contained 1999 budgets

for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) for each

nonattainment area. Table 2 contains

the 1999 NOX and VOC transportation

conformity budgets in tons per summer

day:

TABLE 2.—1999 BUDGETS IN THE

POST-1996 ROP PLANS

Nonattainment area VOC

(tpsd)

NOX

(tpsd)

Severe area .............. 20.5 39.4

Serious area ............. 61.6 125.3

On February 10, 1999, Connecticut

submitted 2007 budgets for NOX and

VOCs to EPA as a required component

of the attainment demonstrations for the

one-hour ozone standard for each

40564 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 127 / Friday, June 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

nonattainment area. Due to technical

flaws EPA published a document in the

Federal Register announcing these

budgets inadequate on December 16,

1999 (64 FR 70332 and 64 FR 70348).

However, on February 15, 2000, EPA

received the document entitled

‘‘Addenda to the Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations for the Southwest

Connecticut Severe Ozone

Nonattainment Area and Greater

Connecticut Serious Ozone

Nonattainment area.’’ This document

included the revised transportation

conformity budgets for 2007 shown

below in Table 3:

TABLE 3.—2007 BUDGETS

Nonattainment area VOC

(tpsd)

NOX

(tpsd)

Severe area .............. 9.7 23.7

Serious area ............. 30.0 79.6

Since these budgets are more

restrictive, cover a time frame longer

than the post-1996 ROP plans, and are

based on the attainment plan, the 2007

budgets take precedence over the 1999

budgets. Furthermore, EPA New

England published a document in the

Federal Register announcing that these

budgets are adequate for use in

transportation conformity

determinations on June 16, 2000 (65 FR

37778). Therefore, the 2007 budgets

supersede the 1999 budgets. As a result,

all new and revised State Transportation

Improvement Programs that require a

conformity determination must conform

to these 2007 budgets, not the 1999

budgets contained in the post-1996 rate

of progress plan.

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that Connecticut has met the

ROP requirements of the Act, and

therefore EPA is proposing to approve

the Connecticut post-1996 ROP plans

that were submitted as revisions to the

State’s SIP on December 31, 1997 and

January 7, 1998. EPA also proposes

approval of minor revisions to the

State’s 1990 base year inventory. EPA is

soliciting public comments on the

issues discussed in this document or on

other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

II. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the rateof-progress SIP revision and minor

revisions to the 1990 base year

inventory submitted by Connecticut on

December 31, 1997 and January 7, 1998

as a revision to the SIP.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this proposal or

on other relevant matters. These

comments will be considered before

EPA takes final action. Interested parties

may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA Regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the

executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone Environmental

protection.

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

Dated: June 20, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA, New England.

[FR Doc. 00–16629 Filed 6–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 00–96; FCC 00–195]

Implementation of the Satellite Home

Viewer Improvement Act of 1999:

Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.