Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52029

TABLE 52.384—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS—Continued

Connecticut State

citation Title/subject

Dates

Federal Register

citation Section 52.370 Comments/description Date adopted by

State

Date approved by

EPA

10/8/80 ................... 11/2/82 47 FR 49646 ...... (c) 20 .................. Correction to subparagraph designation.

10/8/80 ................... 12/13/85 50 FR 50906 ...... (c) 35 .................. Approved definition of acceptable method.

2/25/91 ................... 3/24/92 57 FR 10139 ...... (c) 61 .................. Requires use of low sulfur

fuels at Connecticut

Light & Power in

Montville.

2/14/92 ................... 11/20/92 57 FR 54703 ...... (c) 59 .................. Requires use of low sulfur

fuels at Stones CT Paperboard Corp.

2/5/92 ..................... 11/20/92 57 FR 54703 ...... (c) 59 .................. Requires use of low sulfur

fuel at Hartford Hospital.

22a–174–25 ........ Effective date ...... 4/4/72 ..................... 5/31/72 37 FR 23085 ...... (b).

22a–174–27 ........ Emission Standards for Motor

Vehicles.

9/24/82 ................... 3/21/84 49 FR 10542 ...... (c) 32 .................. Exhaust ‘‘emission standards’’ for periodic motor

vehicle inspection and

maintenance.

14–164C ............. Periodic Motor Vehicle Emissions

Inspection and

Maintenance.

7/27/82 ................... 3/21/84 49 FR 10542 ...... (c) 32 .................. Department of Motor Vehicle Regulations establishing specifications

for Connecticut I&M

program.

22a–174–30 ........ Gasoline Vapor

Recovery.

1/12/93 ................... 12/17/93 58 FR 65930 ...... (c) 62 .................. Requires Stage II vapor

recovery from gasoline

dispensers.

1/18/94 59 FR 2649 ........ (c) 62 .................. Correction to 12/17/93

notice.

22a–174–100 ...... Permits for construction of indirect sources

Rescinded from

federal SIP.

1/9/74 ..................... 2/25/74 39 FR 7280 ........ (c) 4 .................... Requires review of air impacts of indirect

sources.

8/20/74 ................... 2/13/76 41 FR 6765 ........ (c) 6 .................... Added indirect source review (ISR) regulations.

6/30/77 ................... 1/26/79 44 FR 5427 ........ (c) 9.

NA .......................... 12/23/79 45 FR 84769 ...... (c) 11 .................. SIP shown to attain

standards as expeditiously as practicable

without ISR regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–26434 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX No.VA–076–5028; FRL–5904–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia:

Determination of Attainment of Ozone

Standard and Applicability of Certain

Requirements in the Richmond Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the

Richmond moderate ozone

nonattainment area has attained the 1-

hour .12 parts per million (ppm)

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone. This determination

is based upon the latest four years of

ambient air monitoring data for the

years 1993–96 that demonstrate that the

1-hour ozone NAAQS is being attained

in this area. EPA has also determined

that the Richmond area has continued to

attain the 1-hour standard to date. On

the basis of this determination, EPA is

also determining that certain reasonable

further progress and attainment

demonstration requirements, along with

certain other related requirements of

part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), are not applicable to the

Richmond area so long as this area

continues to attain the ozone NAAQS,

or until the area is redesignated to

attainment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on November 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristeen Gaffney, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide and Mobile Sources Section

(3AT21), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency—Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107, or by telephone at: (215) 566–

2092. Questions may also be sent via email, to the following address:

Gaffney.Kristeen@epamail.epa.gov.
52030 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1Section 182(b) of the Act specifies that RACT is

to be implemented not later than May 15, 1995. The

discrepancy in dates does not substantively affect

the commenters argument.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

13, 1997, EPA published its

determination that the Richmond ozone

nonattainment area has attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone, and that Richmond

has continued to attain the standard to

date. On the basis of this determination,

EPA further determined that certain

reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements of part D of Title I of the

CAA are not applicable to this area as

long as this area continues to attain the

ozone NAAQS. See 62 FR 32204.

EPA made these determinations

through direct final rulemaking without

prior proposal because the Agency

viewed the action as noncontroversial

and anticipated no adverse comments.

The final rule was published in the

Federal Register with a provision for a

30-day public comment period. The

final rule stated that if adverse

comments were received during the

comment period, the final rulemaking

action would be withdrawn by

publishing a notice announcing

withdrawal of the final action in the

Federal Register. At the same time, EPA

published a proposed rule for the same

action in the event that adverse

comments were submitted to EPA

within 30 days of publication of the rule

in the Federal Register [62 FR 32258,

June 13, 1997].

In a separate action, also on June 13,

1997, EPA proposed approval of the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan submitted by the Commonwealth

of Virginia for the Richmond area and

provided a 30-day public comment

period. [62 FR 32258] On July 14, 1997,

EPA received a letter from the New York

State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitting

adverse comments that referenced both

the determination of attainment

rulemaking and the proposed approval

of the redesignation request and

maintenance plan rulemaking. The

adverse comments all appear to pertain

to the proposed approval of the

redesignation request, and several

comments were clearly identifiable as

addressed solely to the proposal to

approve the redesignation request. It

was thus at best ambiguous as to

whether any comments pertained to the

rulemaking on the determination of

attainment. However, to ensure that this

comment letter was given proper

consideration as it relates to EPA’s

determination of attainment and the

resulting inapplicability of the RFP,

attainment demonstration and section

172(c)(9) contingency measure

requirements for the Richmond area,

EPA removed the June 13, 1997 final

rulemaking action in order to address

the comments. [See 62 FR 43471,

August 14, 1997.]

In today’s action, the EPA is

responding to the comments in

NYSDEC’s letter only as they may relate

to the determination of attainment and

the inapplicability of certain RFP and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements of part D of Title I of the

CAA. EPA will respond to the

comments received from NYSDEC

related to the redesignation request and

maintenance plan in a separate

rulemaking on EPA’s final action in the

context of the requirements for

redesignation to attainment under the

CAA.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a

new NAAQS for ozone replacing the 1-

hour .12 ppm standard with an 8-hour

0.08 ppm standard [62 FR 38856]. EPA

is in the process of developing guidance

and proposed rules to implement the

new ozone standard based on a

Presidential Directive signed on July 16,

1997 and also published in the Federal

Register on July 18, 1997. Today’s

action is a determination of attainment

for the Richmond area of the 1-hour .12

ppm ozone standard and a

determination of inapplicability of

certain CAA requirements related to that

standard only. Today’s decision does

not in any way make a determination

regarding Richmond’s attainment status

for the newly promulgated 8-hour .08

ppm ozone standard. Decisions

regarding the attainment status of areas

for the new 8-hour .08 ppm ozone

NAAQS will be conducted through a

separate rulemaking to be published at

a later date at the time EPA designates

all areas as attainment or nonattainment

under the new 8-hour NAAQS.

EPA’s decision that certain CAA

requirements related to the 1-hour .12

ppm ozone standard are inapplicable is

based on an EPA policy memo of May

10, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, to the Regional Air Division

Directors entitled ‘‘Reasonable Further

Progress, Attainment Demonstration,

and Related Requirements for Ozone

Nonattainment Areas Meeting the

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard.’’ See the discussion and

rationale contained in EPA’s prior

determination of attainment

rulemakings for: Grand Rapids, MI [61

FR 31831, 31832–31834, June 21, 1996],

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain, OH [61 FR

20458, May 7, 1996] and Salt Lake City/

Davis County, UT [60 FR 36723, July 18,

1995]. See also the decision of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

upholding the statutory interpretation

contained in the May 10, 1995 Seitz

memo. Sierra Club v. EPA 99f.3d 1551

(10th Cir. 1996).

Response to Public Comments

Comment #1

NYSDEC disagrees with EPA’s

statement in the proposed rulemaking

for approval of the redesignation request

and maintenance plan that the

Richmond area has met all relevant

requirements of the CAA that were due

as of July 26, 1996, the date Virginia

submitted its redesignation request.

NYSDEC states that the Commonwealth

of Virginia missed the ‘‘November 15,

1995’’ statutory deadline for

implementing the nitrogen oxides (NOX)

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) requirements of the CAA and

continues to be delinquent.1 It was

noted that the Commonwealth of

Virginia responded to EPA’s July 8,

1994 finding of failure to submit a NOX

RACT state implementation plan (SIP)

for the Richmond area with a petition

for an exemption from the NOX RACT

requirement submitted on December 18,

1995. NYSDEC states that this December

18, 1995 petition was well after the

mandated date of November 15, 1993 for

submittal of a NOX RACT SIP and after

the mandatory implementation date.

NYSDEC concludes that ‘‘[t]herefore,

not implementing NOX RACT in the

Richmond area was not an option.’’

NYSDEC objects to the proposed

approval of the redesignation request on

the grounds that the area failed to

implement RACT on major sources of

NOX.

Response #1

Upon careful consideration of this

comment, EPA concludes that this

comment is relevant only to the

proposed approval of the redesignation

to attainment and not EPA’s July 13,

1997 decision that the RFP, attainment

demonstration and section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirements of

the CAA are inapplicable to Richmond.

Section 107 of the CAA requires that the

Commonwealth meet all applicable part

D requirements prior to redesignation.

However, there is no linkage of the

section 182(f) NOX RACT requirement

with the determination of attainment

and resulting inapplicability of certain

part D requirements for RFP, the

attainment demonstration and other

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2),

172(c)(9), and 182(b)(1). Eligibility for

this
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52031

determination is based solely on

monitored air quality. Furthermore, on

July 21, 1997, EPA published final

approval of an exemption from the NOX

RACT requirement for the Richmond

area contingent upon air quality

monitoring that demonstrates continued

attainment of the ozone NAAQS [62 FR

38922].

As discussed in the June 13, 1997

direct final rulemaking, EPA has

previously interpreted the general

provisions of subpart 1 of part D of Title

I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to

require the submission of SIP revisions

concerning RFP, attainment

demonstrations, or contingency

measures where an area is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard. See 57

FR 13498, 57 FR 13564 (April 16, 1992).

As discussed in the direct final

rulemaking and in previous rulemakings

in other areas cited above, EPA has

concluded that it is appropriate to

interpret the more specific RFP,

attainment demonstration and related

provisions of subpart 2 in the same

manner. This conclusion was upheld by

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th

Circuit, Sierra Club v. EPA 99f.3d 1551

(10th Cir. 1996). According to the May

10, 1995 policy memo, three

consecutive years of complete, quality

assured ambient air quality monitoring

data is the sole determinant of whether

the Richmond area has attained the

standard and is therefore eligible for a

determination that certain part D

requirements do not apply, for as long

as the Richmond area continues to

attain the standard, or until the area is

no longer designated nonattainment. Comment #2

NYSDEC also contests EPA’s

statement in the redesignation request

and maintenance plan proposed

rulemaking that the Commonwealth of

Virginia has a fully approved SIP for the

Richmond area under section 110(a)(2).

NYSDEC states that any NOX exemption

petition would also be invalid because

section 110(a)(2)(D) prohibits granting

an exemption from NOX RACT pursuant

to section 182(f) of the CAA where there

is evidence that the exemption would

interfere with attainment of a NAAQS in

another state. Therefore, NSYDEC

claims the redesignation request does

not meet this prerequisite for

redesignation of section 107 of the CAA

that the Commonwealth have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(a)(2). Response #2

Upon careful consideration of this

comment, EPA concludes that this

comment is relevant only to the

proposed approval of the redesignation

to attainment and not EPA’s July 13,

1997 decision that the RFP, attainment

demonstration and section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirements of

the CAA are inapplicable to Richmond.

The commenter objected to the

proposed approval of the redesignation

request on the grounds that the area

failed to implement RACT on major

sources of NOX. The commenter did not

object to the determination that the area

has attained the standard or that certain

requirements of the CAA are no longer

applicable for so long as the area

continues to attain the standard, or until

the area is no longer designated

nonattainment.

While section 107 of the CAA requires

the Commonwealth to have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(a)(2)

prior to redesignation to attainment, the

determination of the inapplicability of

certain part D requirements is based

solely on air quality data. There is no

requirement to have a fully approved

SIP under section 110(a)(2) to be eligible

for a determination that the area is

attaining the standard and that,

therefore, certain part D requirements of

the CAA for RFP, attainment

demonstration and other requirements

of sections 172(c)(2), 172(c)(9) and

182(b)(1) are inapplicable. On July 21, 1997, EPA published final

approval of an exemption from the NOX

RACT requirement for the Richmond

area contingent upon air quality

monitoring that demonstrates continued

attainment of the ozone NAAQS [62 FR

38922]. In the July 21, 1997 final

rulemaking action on the NOX

exemption, EPA responded to adverse

comments received that section

110(a)(2)(D) prohibits granting

exemptions pursuant to section 182(f)

where there is evidence that granting of

the exemption would interfere with

attainment of the ozone NAAQS in

downwind areas. See 62 FR 38926.

Furthermore, as EPA responded in the

final rulemaking, the action to provide

a NOX RACT waiver under section

182(f) for any area would not shield that

state from the obligation, in response to

a SIP call under section 110 by EPA, to

obtain NOX emission reductions, if

evidence such as photochemical grid

modeling shows that NOX emissions

contribute significantly to downwind

nonattainment or maintenance in

another state.

Comment #3: NSYDEC states that it is

not a relevant factor that Richmond is

now attaining the ozone NAAQS

because the Richmond area has avoided

implementing the NOX RACT

requirements of the Act. Response #3: As stated above, air

quality data is directly relevant to this

action. As set forth in the May 10, 1995

Seitz memo and subsequent

rulemakings, EPA is authorized to

conduct individual rulemakings

concerning areas that have three

consecutive years of clean air quality

monitoring data demonstrating

attainment of the ozone standard to

make binding determinations that the

areas have attained the standard and

thus need not make the required SIP

submissions for RFP, the attainment

demonstration and the section 172(c)(9)

contingency measure requirements for

so long as the area remains in

attainment, or until the area is

redesignated to attainment. The fact that

the Richmond area has not implemented

the NOX RACT requirements of the CAA

is not relevant to EPA’s determination of

inapplicability of these other CAA

requirements.

Other specific requirements of section

110 and the rationale for EPA’s

proposed action are explained in the

June 13, 1997 direct final rulemaking

and other rulemakings referenced in

today’s action, and will not be restated

here.

Final Action

EPA has determined that the

Richmond ozone nonattainment area

has attained the 1-hour .12 ppm ozone

standard and continues to attain that

standard at this time. As a consequence

of this determination, the requirements

of sections 182(b)(1) and 172(c)(2)

concerning the submission of the 15

percent plan and ozone attainment

demonstration and the requirements of

section 172(c)(9) concerning

contingency measures are no longer

applicable to the area so long as the area

does not violate the 1-hour .12 ppm

ozone standard, or until the area is

redesignated to attainment.

EPA emphasizes that this

determination is contingent upon the

continued monitoring and continued

attainment and maintenance of the

ozone NAAQS in the affected area. In

the event the area is still designated

nonattainment and a violation of the

ozone NAAQS is monitored in the

Richmond nonattainment area

(consistent with the requirements

contained in 40 CFR part 58), EPA will

provide notice to the public in the

Federal Register. Such a violation

would mean that the area would

thereafter have to address the

requirements of section 182(b)(1) and

section 172(c)(9) since the basis for the

determination that they do not apply

would no longer exist.

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
52032 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 193 / Monday, October 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

I. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

II. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. Today’s determination

does not create any new requirements,

but suspends the indicated

requirements. Therefore, because this

action does not impose any new

requirements, EPA certifies that it does

not have a significant impact on any

small entities affected.

III. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed/promulgated does not

include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This federal action does

not create any new requirements, but

suspends the indicated requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

IV. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by December 5,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule regarding a determination

of attainment of ozone standard and a

determination regarding the

applicability of certain CAA

requirements in the Richmond area does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: September 27, 1997.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart VV of chapter

I, title 40 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2428 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.2428 Control Strategy: Carbon

monoxide and ozone.

Determination—EPA has determined

that, as of November 5, 1997, the

Richmond ozone nonattainment area,

which consists of the counties of

Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, and part

of Charles City County, and of the cities

of Richmond, Colonial Heights and

Hopewell, has attained the 1-hour .12

ppm ozone standard based on three

years of air quality data for 1993, 1994

and 1995. EPA has further determined

that the reasonable further progress and

attainment demonstration requirements

of section 182(b)(1) and related

requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act do not apply to the

Richmond area for so long as the area

does not monitor any violations of the

1-hour .12 ppm ozone standard, or until

the area is no longer designated

nonattainment. If a violation of the

ozone NAAQS is monitored in the

Richmond ozone nonattainment area

while the area is designated

nonattainment, these determinations

shall no longer apply.

[FR Doc. 97–26444 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5902–7]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Partial Deletion of

Releases from the Saegertown Industrial

Area Site from the National Priorities

List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

releases on certain properties at the

Saegertown Industrial Area Superfund

Site (Site) in Saegertown, Pennsylvania

from the National Priorities List (NPL).

Pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA),

EPA promulgated the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

(NCP) at 40 CFR part 300. The NPL is

published at appendix B of 40 CFR part

300. EPA and the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania have determined that all

appropriate Fund-financed and

responsible party-financed responses

under CERCLA have been implemented

on the former GATX property at the

Site, and that no further cleanup is

appropriate for the former GATX

property, the former SCI property or the

SMC property at the Site. Moreover,

EPA and the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania have determined that the

remedial action conducted on the

former GATX property to date remains