55368 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Elinsky, Corps Baltimore District, at

(410) 962–4503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to its authorities in section 7 of the

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat.

266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40

Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps

proposes to amend the regulations in 33

CFR part 334 by adding a new § 334.155

which establishes a naval restricted area

at the Naval Station Annapolis small

boat basin, off the Severn River at

Annapolis, Maryland. The Commanding

Officer of the Naval Station Annapolis,

has requested that the Corps establish

the restricted area for reasons of security

and navigational safety. The small boat

basin plays an integral role in the

training of midshipmen of the U.S.

Naval Academy. The basin is used

continuously by the Naval Academy as

a training area for maneuvering and

seamanship exercises. Over the past 40

years, the small boat basin has been

surrounded by restricted U.S. Navy

property of the Naval Station Annapolis

and the Naval Surface Warfare Center

(NSWC), and accordingly, access to the

basin was limited to Naval personnel. In

1995, the Congress approved the

Department of Defense Base

Realignment and Closure Commission’s

recommendation to close the NSWC at

that location. The NSWC property is

slated to become the property of Anne

Arundel County and presumably that

area and the shoreline of the basin could

become accessible to the public. Public

access to the basin from the NSWC

property by non-U.S. Navy/Department

of Defense personnel would pose an

unacceptable security risk to the Naval

Station. Navigational safety would also

be a problem if non-Naval vessels are

allowed to operate in the basin and

because 260 feet of the NSWC seawall

is located at the entrance to the basin,

which is only 170 feet wide, any

mooring by vessels along the seawall

would further restrict the entrance and

present a hazard to boats entering and

leaving the basin. In addition to the

publication of this proposed rule, the

Baltimore District Engineer is soliciting

public comment on these proposed

changes to the restricted area rules by

distribution of a public notice to all

known interested parties.

Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is issued with

respect to a military function of the

Defense Department and the provisions

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

B. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

These proposed rules have been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354), which

requires the preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis for any regulation

that will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (i.e., small businesses and small

Governments). The Corps expects that

the economic impact of the

establishment of this restricted area

would have practically no impact on the

public, no anticipated navigational

hazard or interference with existing

waterway traffic and accordingly,

certifies that this proposal if adopted,

will have no significant economic

impact on small entities.

C. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment has

been prepared for this action. We have

concluded, based on the minor nature of

the proposed additional restricted area

regulations, that this action will not

have a significant impact to the human

environment, and preparation of an

environmental impact statement is not

required. The environmental assessment

may be reviewed at the District Office

listed at the end of FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

This proposed rule does not impose

an enforceable duty among the private

sector and, therefore, is not a Federal

private sector mandate and is not

subject to the requirements of section

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Act. We have also found under section

203 of the Act, that small Governments

will not be significantly and uniquely

affected by this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Navigation (water), Transportation,

Danger Zones.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, we propose to amend 33 CFR

part 334, as follows:

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 334

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1) and

40 Stat. 892; (33 U.S.C. 3)

2. Add new § 334.155 to read as

follows:

§ 334.155 Severn River, Naval Station

Annapolis, Small Boat Basin, Annapolis,

MD; naval restricted area.

(a) The area. The waters within the

Naval Station Annapolis small boat

basin and adjacent waters of the Severn

River enclosed by a line beginning at the

southeast corner of the U.S. Navy

Marine Engineering Laboratory; thence

to latitude 38°58′56.5′′, longitude

76°28′11.5′′; thence to latitude

38°58′50.5′′, longitude 76°27′52′′; thence

to the southeast corner of the Naval

Station’s seawall.

(b) The regulations. No person, vessel

or other craft shall enter or remain in

the restricted area at any time except as

authorized by the enforcing agency.

(c) Enforcement. The regulations in

this section shall be enforced by the

Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy,

in Annapolis, Maryland, and such

agencies as he/she may designate.

Dated: October 20, 1997.

Approved.

Robert W. Burkhardt,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Executive

Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 97–28196 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–7202b; FRL–5902–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Conditional

Approval of Implementation Plans;

Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing action

on State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut. The EPA is proposing

approval of Connecticut’s 1990 base

year ozone emission inventories, and

establishment of a Photochemical

Assessment Monitoring Stations

(PAMS) network, as revisions to the

Connecticut SIP for ozone. The EPA

proposes a conditional approval of SIP

revisions submitted by the State of

Connecticut to meet the 15 Percent Rate

of Progress (ROP) Plan requirements of

the Clean Air Act (CAA). A conditional

approval is also proposed for the

Connecticut contingency plan.

The inventory was submitted by

Connecticut to satisfy a CAA

requirement that those States containing

ozone nonattainment areas (NAAs)
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55369

classified as marginal to extreme submit

inventories of actual ozone season

emissions from all sources in

accordance with EPA guidance. The

PAMS SIP revision was submitted to

provide for the establishment and

maintenance of an enhanced ambient air

quality monitoring network by

November 15, 1993. The 15 percent ROP

and contingency plans were submitted

to satisfy CAA provisions that require

ozone nonattainment areas classified as

moderate and above to devise plans to

reduce volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions 15 percent by 1996

when compared to a 1990 baseline.

In the final rules section of today’s

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the Connecticut 1990 base year

inventories, and the establishment of a

PAMS network as a direct final rule

without prior proposal, because the

Agency views these as noncontroversial

revision amendments and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for each approval is set forth in the

direct final rule. A direct final rule is

not being published for the Connecticut

15 percent ROP and contingency plans.

If no adverse comments are received on

the direct final rule, no further activity

is contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule for these revisions. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: Public comments on this

document are requested and will be

considered before taking final action on

this SIP revision. Comments on this

proposed action must be postmarked by

November 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Susan

Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts

02203. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the EPA Region I office, and at

the Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Management, 79 Elm Street, Hartford,

Connecticut, 06106–1630. Persons

interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. McConnell, Air Quality

Planning Unit, EPA Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts

02203; telephone (617) 565–9266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

supplementary information regarding

the Connecticut 1990 base year emission

inventories, and establishment of a

PAMS network, see the information

provided in the direct final action of the

same title which is located in the rules

section of the Federal Register.

Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA as

amended in 1990 requires ozone

nonattainment areas with classifications

of moderate and above to develop plans

to reduce area-wide VOC emissions by

15 percent from a 1990 baseline. The

plans were to be submitted by

November 15, 1993 and the reductions

were required to be achieved within 6

years of enactment or November 15,

1996. The Clean Air Act also sets

limitations on the creditability of certain

types of reductions. Specifically, States

cannot take credit for reductions

achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle

Control Program (FMVCP) measures

(new car emissions standards)

promulgated prior to 1990 or for

reductions resulting from requirements

to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990.

Furthermore, the CAA does not allow

credit for corrections to Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Programs

(I/M) or corrections to Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules (so called ‘‘RACT fix-ups) as these

programs were required prior to 1990.

In addition, sections 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the CAA require that

contingency measures be included in

the plan revision to be implemented if

the area misses an ozone SIP milestone,

or fails to attain the standard by the date

required by the CAA.

There are two nonattainment areas in

Connecticut, one classified as a serious

area, the other as a severe area.

Connecticut is, therefore subject to the

15 percent ROP requirements. The areas

are referred to as the Greater Hartford

serious ozone nonattainment area (the

‘‘Hartford area’’), and the Connecticut

portion of the New York, New Jersey,

Connecticut severe area (the ‘‘NY–NJ–

CT area’’), which is a multi-state ozone

nonattainment area. Connecticut did not

enter into an agreement with New York

and New Jersey to do a multi-state 15

percent plan, and therefore submitted a

plan to reduce emissions only in the

Connecticut portion of this area. EPA is

taking action today only on the

Connecticut portion of NY–NJ–CT 15

percent plan.

Connecticut submitted final 15

percent ROP plans to EPA on January

14, 1994. The plans, however, did not

contain adopted rules for all of the VOC

control measures listed within, and so

they were deemed incomplete by EPA

by letter dated January 26, 1994. During

1994, Connecticut submitted the

adopted rules necessary for its 15

percent ROP plan. Revised 15 percent

ROP and contingency plans were

submitted on July 5, 1994 and December

30, 1994. By letter dated January 26,

1995, EPA notified Connecticut that the

15 percent ROP plans had been found

complete, thereby stopping a sanctions

clock which had been started on January

26, 1994 due to the lack of complete 15

percent plans from the state.

The EPA has analyzed Connecticut’s

submittal and believes that the 15

percent ROP and contingency plans can

be given conditional approval because

the State correctly determined the

required level of emission reductions,

and the plans would strengthen the SIP

by achieving reductions in VOC and

Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) emissions. These

plans, however, reference an enhanced

automobile inspection and maintenance

program which the State no longer

intends to implement. By letter dated

August 22, 1997 the Connecticut DEP

committed to submittal of revised 15

percent ROP and contingency plans,

and a revised I/M program, by April 1,

1998, that would reflect emission

reduction credit appropriate for the type

of automobile I/M program that the

State will implement. Additionally, the

letter contains a commitment to initiate

testing of motor vehicles by January 1,

1998. Based on these commitments, the

EPA is proposing a conditional approval

of the plans. For a complete discussion

of EPA’s analysis of the Connecticut 15

Percent ROP and Contingency plans,

please refer to the Technical Support

Document for this action which is

available as part of the docket

supporting this action. A summary of

the EPA’s findings follows.

Emission Inventory

The base from which States determine

the required reductions in the 15

Percent Plan is the 1990 emission

inventory. The EPA is approving the

Connecticut 1990 emission inventories

with a direct final action in the rules

section of today’s Federal Register. The

inventory approved by the EPA exactly

matches the one used in the 15 Percent

ROP plan calculations, with one minor

exception of less than 1⁄2 ton per

summer day (tpsd) out of a total

anthropogenic emission estimate of

416.9 tpsd for this area. EPA deems this

discrepancy inconsequential.
55370 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

Connecticut subtracted the noncreditable reductions from the Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP) from the 1990 inventory, and

accurately adjusted the inventory to

account for the reid vapor pressure

(RVP) of gasoline sold in the state in

1990. These modifications result in the

1990 adjusted inventory.

The total emission reduction required

to meet the 15 percent ROP Plan

requirements equals the sum of the

following items: 15 percent of the

adjusted inventory, reductions that

occur from noncreditable programs such

as the FMVCP and RVP programs as

required prior to 1990, reductions

needed to offset any growth in

emissions that takes place between 1990

and 1996, and reductions that result

from corrections to the I/M or VOC

RACT rules. Table 1 summarizes these

calculations for the two ozone

nonattainment areas within the state:

TABLE 1.—CALCULATION OF REQUIRED REDUCTIONS

[Tons/day]

NY–NJ–CT Hartford

1990 anthropogenic emission inventory 1 .......................................................................................................... 131.7 414.2

1990 adjusted inventory 2 ................................................................................................................................... 121.8 389.3

15 percent of adjusted inventory ....................................................................................................................... 18.3 58.4

Noncreditable reductions ................................................................................................................................... 9.9 24.9

1996 target ......................................................................................................................................................... 103.5 330.9

1996 3 projected, uncontrolled emissions .......................................................................................................... 129.6 415.7

Required reduction 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 26.1 84.8

1 Manmade emissions only. Perchloroethylene emissions excluded due to negligible photochemical reactivity.

2Adjusted inventory subtracts non-creditable FMVCP and RACT reductions from the anthropogenic inventory.

3 1996 emissions for on-road mobile sources were calculated using an emission factor that reflected the level of control achieved by the

FMVCP in 1996. 4 Required Reductions were obtained by subtracting 1996 target from the 1996 projected uncontrolled inventory.

Measures Achieving the Projected

Reductions

Connecticut has provided plans to

achieve the reductions required for the

two ozone nonattainment areas within

the state. The following is a description

of each control measure Connecticut

used to achieve emission reduction

credit within its 15 percent ROP plans.

The EPA agrees with the emission

reductions projected in the State

submittals except where noted in the

text and in Table 2 under the heading

‘‘Noncreditable Reductions.’’

A. Point Source Controls

Non-CTG Sources

Connecticut has claimed 3.1 tpsd in

emission reduction credit from the

implementation of VOC RACT on

stationary sources. The reductions are

claimed from facilities subject to the

State’s non-CTG RACT rule. The State’s

rule has been submitted to EPA, but has

not as of yet been approved by EPA into

the State’s SIP. EPA intends to take final

action on the State’s rule by the time

final action are issued for the State’s 15

percent plans. The State’s 15 percent

plans included documentation for the

level of emission reduction credit

claimed. The emission reductions

claimed by the State are approvable.

Gasoline Loading Racks, Rule

Effectiveness Improvement

The Connecticut DEP plans on

undertaking a rule effectiveness

improvement program to improve

compliance with a regulation on

gasoline loading racks. The State’s SIP

outlines the manner in which

Connecticut intends to improve

compliance with this rule, including

conducting 3 unannounced inspections

at each of the 14 facilities in the state

over a 24 month period. Additionally,

the State submitted a rule effectiveness

improvements protocol to EPA which

outlines the manner in which the State

will verify that these emission

reductions have occurred. At the

conclusion of the State’s rule

effectiveness program, a report

documenting the results of the effort

will be submitted to the EPA. The State

anticipates achieving a 3.6 tpsd

emission reduction statewide for this

source category due to the rule

effectiveness improvement program,

and due to the effect that the sale of

reformulated gasoline in the State will

have on gasoline loading rack

emissions.

B. Area Source Controls

Vehicle Refueling (Stage II)

Connecticut has adopted and

submitted to EPA a Stage II vehicle

refueling regulation. EPA approved the

rule into the State’s SIP on December

17, 1993 (58 FR 65930). Connecticut

calculated 1996 vehicle refueling

emissions and underground tank

breathing emissions jointly, and

determined that a 15.6 tpsd emission

reduction would occur from these

emission sources. Emissions from

underground tanks will be reduced due

to the sale of reformulated gasoline in

the State.

Automobile Refinishing

On November 29, 1994, EPA issued a

final guidance memorandum that

allowed States to assume a 37% control

level for this source category without

adopting a State rule due to a pending

National rule. The State correctly

applied this guidance and determined

that emissions will be reduced 7.4 tpsd

statewide due to implementation of the

federal rule.

Architectural Coatings

In a memo dated March 22, 1995, EPA

provided guidance on the expected

reductions from a pending national

rulemaking on AIM coatings. The memo

projects that emissions would be

reduced by 20% for both architectural

coatings and industrial maintenance

coatings. The State correctly applied

this guidance and determined that

emissions will be reduced 6.5 tpsd

statewide due to implementation of the

federal rule.

Cutback Asphalt, Increased Rule

Effectiveness

The December 30, 1994 revision to the

Connecticut 15 percent ROP plans

included a plan to increase the rule

effectiveness of the State’s cutback

asphalt regulations, such that a total of

15.3 tpsd in emission reductions would

be achieved. The State’s SIP outlines the

manner in which Connecticut intends to

improve compliance with this rule,

including notifying all towns in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55371

State of their responsibilities pursuant

to the rule, and requiring all towns to

annually report their cutback asphalt

usage. The State submitted a rule

effectiveness improvements protocol to

EPA which outlines the manner in

which the State will verify that these

emission reductions have occurred. At

the conclusion of the State’s rule

effectiveness program, a report

documenting the results of the effort

will be submitted to the EPA. The

emission reductions claimed by the

State are approvable.

Effect of Reformulated Gasoline on

Remaining Gasoline Marketing

Operations

Reformulated gasoline will be

required to be sold in Connecticut in

1996. This fuel has a lower volatility

than conventional gasoline, and

therefore produces less evaporative

emissions than conventional gasoline.

Appendix C of Connecticut’s 15 percent

plan outlines the effect that the sale of

‘‘Class C’’ reformulated gasoline will

have on emissions in 1996 from the

gasoline distribution network. The State

estimated the emission reduction

expected from the source categories

where this reduction was not previously

quantified, such as bulk gasoline storage

tanks, barges, gasoline trucks in transit,

and Stage I tank filling operations. The

net result was a 1.0 tpsd emission

reduction statewide. The projected

emission reductions are approvable.

C. On-Road Mobile Source Controls

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

The 15 percent ROP plans relied on

an enhanced vehicle I/M program that

was developed by Connecticut and

submitted to EPA on May 13, 1994. In

light of the recent I/M flexibility policy

issued by EPA, Connecticut has

indicated an interest in re-evaluating

their enhanced I/M program to take

advantage of the I/M flexibility.

However, Connecticut has not yet

submitted a revised I/M program design

to EPA. By letter dated August 22, 1997,

Connecticut committed to submitting a

revised I/M program to EPA by April 1,

1998, revised 15 percent and

contingency plans reflecting the credit

from the revised I/M program by April

1, 1998, and importantly, the State

committed to begin testing motor

vehicles by January 1, 1998. Since the

enhanced I/M program described within

the 15 percent plan submitted to EPA on

December 30, 1994 will not be

implemented, EPA cannot fully approve

the emission reductions from this

program. However, based on the

commitments contained within the

State’s August 22, 1997 letter, EPA

proposes to conditionally approve the

Connecticut 15 percent ROP and

contingency plans.

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires

that States containing ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

moderate or above prepare plans that

provide for a 15 percent VOC emission

reduction by November 15, 1996. Most

of the 15 percent SIPs originally

submitted to the EPA contained

enhanced I/M programs because this

program achieves more VOC emission

reductions than most, if not all other,

control strategies. However, because

most States experienced substantial

difficulties with these enhanced I/M

programs, only a few States are

currently actually testing cars using the

original enhanced I/M protocol.

In September, 1995, the EPA finalized

revisions to its enhanced I/M rule

allowing states significant flexibility in

designing I/M programs appropriate for

their needs. The substantial amount of

time needed by States to re-design

enhanced I/M programs in accordance

with the guidance contained within

EPA’s revised I/M rule, secure state

legislative approval when necessary,

and set up the infrastructure to perform

the testing program has precluded States

that revise their I/M programs from

obtaining emission reductions from

such revised programs by November 15,

1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many

States upon enhanced I/M programs to

help achieve the 15 percent VOC

emission reduction required under CAA

section 182(b)(1), and the recent

regulatory changes regarding enhanced

I/M programs, the EPA recognized that

it is no longer possible for many States

to achieve the portion of the 15 percent

reductions that are attributed to I/M by

November 15, 1996. Under these

circumstances, disapproval of the 15

percent SIPs would serve no purpose.

Consequently, under certain

circumstances, EPA will propose to

allow States that pursue re-design of

enhanced I/M programs to receive

emission reduction credit from these

programs within their 15 percent plans,

even though the emission reductions

from the I/M program will occur after

November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will propose

approval of 15 percent SIPs if the

emission reductions from the revised,

enhanced I/M programs, as well as from

the other 15 percent SIP measures, will

achieve the 15 percent level as soon

after November 15, 1996 as practicable.

To make this ‘‘as soon as practicable’’

determination, the EPA must determine

that the SIP contains all VOC control

strategies that are practicable for the

nonattainment area in question and that

meaningfully accelerate the date by

which the 15 percent level is achieved.

The EPA does not believe that measures

meaningfully accelerate the 15 percent

date if they provide only an

insignificant amount of reductions.

In the case of the NY–NJ–CT area and

the Hartford area, Connecticut has

committed to submittal of 15 percent

SIPs that would achieve the amount of

reductions needed from I/M by

November, 1999. The EPA proposes to

determine that these SIP revisions

contain all measures, including

automobile I/M, that achieve the

required reductions as soon as

practicable.

The EPA has examined other

potentially available SIP measures to

determine if they are practicable for the

two Connecticut ozone nonattainment

areas, and if they would meaningfully

accelerate the date by which these areas

reach the 15 percent level of reductions.

The EPA proposes to determine that

these SIPs contain the appropriate

measures. The rationale for this

determination is outlined within the

technical support document available in

the docket for this action. In summary,

several area source measures exist

which could conceivably be

implemented prior to November 1999.

However, these measures would not

achieve the same level of emission

reductions expected from Connecticut’s

I/M program, and additionally, would

not meaningfully accelerate the

achievement of the required reductions.

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)

Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act

requires that after January 1, 1995, in

the nine areas of the country with the

worst air quality, only reformulated

gasoline be sold or dispensed. Portions

of the State of Connecticut are covered

by this requirement. On October 28,

1991, Connecticut submitted a letter

from their Governor requesting that the

portions of the State not specifically

required by the CAA to use

reformulated gasoline ‘‘opt into’’ the

reformulated fuels program. This

request was published in the Federal

Register on December 23, 1991, 56 FR

66444. Connecticut correctly used the

MOBILE5a model to calculate the

emission reductions due to the

implementation of the reformulated

gasoline program.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control

Program

The EPA promulgated standards for

1994 and later model year light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR
55372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

25724, June 5, 1991). Since the

standards were adopted after the Clean

Air Act amendments of 1990, the

resulting emission reductions are

creditable toward the 15 percent

reduction goal. Connecticut correctly

calculated these reductions using the

MOBILE5a model.

Employee Commute Option

Connecticut has adopted legislation

requiring employers in the State’s severe

nonattainment area with 100 or more

employees implement measures to

increase average passenger occupancy

by 25%. The EPA has not approved this

program into the State’s SIP. A

discussion with staff from the CT–DEP

indicates that this program is not being

implemented. The State included the

effect of this program in the MOBILE

modeling runs done to estimate

emission reductions in the severe area.

This resulted in the State assuming 0.4

tpsd in emission reduction credit which

will not occur in the Connecticut

portion of the NY–NJ–CT area due to the

failure to implement this program.

D. Non-Road Mobile Source Controls

Use of Reformulated Gasoline in Nonroad Engines

On August 18, 1993, EPA’s Office of

Mobile Sources issued a guidance

memorandum regarding the VOC

emission reduction benefits for nonroad equipment in a nonattainment area

that uses Federal Phase I RFG.

Connecticut has correctly used the

guidance to compute that VOC

emissions will be reduced 0.6 tpsd in

the severe area, and 2.4 tpsd in the

serious area.

Table 2 summarizes the creditable

and noncreditable emission reductions

contained within the Connecticut 15

percent ROP plans:

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: CONNECTICUT OZONE

NONATTAINMENT AREAS

[Tons/day]

NY–NJ–CT Hartford

Required reduction ............................................................................................................................................. 26.1 84.8

Creditable reductions:

Non-CTG RACT ............................................................................................................................................. 0.9 2.2

Gasoline Loading Racks ................................................................................................................................ 0.7 2.9

Stage II + Tank Breathing .............................................................................................................................. 3.9 11.7

Auto Refinishing ............................................................................................................................................. 2.0 5.4

AIM Coatings .................................................................................................................................................. 1.6 4.9

Cutback Asphalt (RE imp.) ............................................................................................................................. 3.8 11.5

Reform, other gas market .............................................................................................................................. 0.2 0.8

On-road mobile strategies (I/M, Reform, Tier I) ............................................................................................. 16.1 46.1

Reform, Off-road ............................................................................................................................................. 0.6 2.4

Total ......................................................................................................................................................... 29.8 87.9

Noncreditable reductions:

Employee commute option ............................................................................................................................. 0.4 ........................

Surplus ............................................................................................................................................................ 3.7 3.1

Contingency Measures

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 CAA, 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.

The General Preamble to Title I, (57 FR

13498 (April 16, 1992)) states that the

contingency measures should, at a

minimum, ensure that an appropriate

level of emission reduction progress

continues to be made if attainment or

RFP is not achieved and additional

planning by the State is needed. The

EPA interprets this provision of the

CAA to require States with moderate

and above ozone nonattainment areas to

submit sufficient contingency measures

so that upon implementation of such

measures, additional emission

reductions of three percent of the

adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser

percentage that will make up the

identified shortfall) would be achieved

in the year after the failure has been

identified (57 FR at 13511). States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions such as

public hearings or legislative review.

Analysis of Contingency Measures

Surplus Emission Reduction From 15

Percent Plan

Connecticut’s contingency plan

included emission reduction credits that

were considered surplus reductions

from the state’s 15 percent ROP plans.

A 4.0 tpsd surplus was identified for the

NY–NJ–CT area, and a 3.1 tpsd surplus

for the Hartford area. EPA notes that due

to the lack of implementation of the

employee commute program in the NY–

NJ–CT area, the adjusted surplus is 3.7

tpsd for that area. This equals the

contingency obligation for this area, and

so no additional reductions are needed

for the NY–NJ–CT area.

NOX Contingency Measures for Serious

Area

The State determined that the serious

area would need to achieve additional

emission reductions beyond those

generated by the 15 percent plan

surplus for this area. The State chose to

meet the remainder of this requirement

using NOX emission reductions, which

is allowed pursuant to guidance issued

by EPA on August 23, 1993. The state

correctly determined that a 2.2 percent

reduction of the adjusted NOX inventory

(321.5 tpsd) would be required to fulfill

the emission reduction obligations for

the serious area. (The adjusted NOX

inventory is so named because pre-1990

emission reductions from the FMVCP

are subtracted to derive the ‘‘adjusted’’

NOX inventory). This yields a 7.1 tpsd

NOX emission reduction obligation.

Connecticut chose to meet the NOX

contingency measure obligation using a

portion of the emission reductions

achieved by its NOX RACT rule.

Connecticut has submitted a NOX RACT
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55373

5The NY–NJ–CT severe area is also upwind from

the Hartford serious area, so these NOX reductions

will contribute to air quality improvement in the

serious area. Any NOX reduction the State uses in

its contingency demonstration would no longer be

available for use as a trade or other purposes under

the CAA.

rule to the EPA. EPA intends to approve

the State’s rule prior to or concurrent

with final approval of the State’s 15

percent and contingency plans. The

State’s NOX RACT rule is more stringent

than required by the CAA. The State

performed an analysis to determine the

quantity of emission reductions

generated by the rule which are beyond

the reductions required by the CAA.

The results of the analysis were

included with the State’s submittal, and

indicate that 6.3 tpsd surplus credit will

be generated in the severe area, and 3.4

tpsd surplus credit in the serious area.

As stated above, Connecticut needs to

identify 7.1 tpsd in NOX emission

reduction credits to fulfill the

contingency measure obligation for the

serious area. Only 3.4 tpsd are identified

from the State’s analysis of surplus NOX

credits. However, since the State’s NOX

RACT rule contains a Statewide NOX

cap provision, which allows sources

from the serious area to over-control and

trade emission reduction credits to

facilities in the severe area (and vice

versa), the State will use a portion of the

credit generated in the severe area to

meet the remainder (3.7 tpsd) of the

serious area’s contingency obligation.5

Table 3 summarizes the creditable

emission reductions contained within

the State’s contingency plans:

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTIONS: CONNECTICUT

NONATTAINMENT AREAS

[Tons/day]

NJ–NJ–CT Hartford

Required contingency .............................................................................................................................. 3.7 (VOC) 3.1 (VOC)

7.1 (NOX)

Creditable contingency reductions:

Excess from 15 percent plans (VOC) .................................................................................................. 3.7 3.1

Beyond CAA NOX RACT ..................................................................................................................... ................................ 7.1

Transportation Conformity Budgets

In recognition of the proposed

approval of the 15 percent ROP plans,

EPA also proposes approval of motor

vehicle emission budgets for VOCs and

NOX. Final approval of the 15 percent

plan will eliminate the need for the

transportation conformity emission

reduction tests, which are the build/no

build test and the less than 1990

emissions test, for these pollutants.

A control strategy SIP is required to

establish a motor vehicle emission

budget which places a cap on emissions

that cannot be exceeded by predicted

highway and transit vehicle emissions.

The Connecticut DEP did not provide a

break down of the 1996 projected

inventory denoting transit emissions as

an individual category. Therefore EPA is

proposing to utilize the on-road mobile

emissions provided in the SIP submittal

as the motor vehicle emission budget for

transportation conformity purposes. The

1996 projected on-road mobile emission

estimates contained within the State’s

15 percent plans are shown in the

following table:

TABLE 4.—1996 MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSION BUDGETS

NY–NJ–CT

area

Hartford

area

VOC .......... 23.2 71.1

NOX ........... 39.4 126.3

EPA recommends that the DEP submit

a specific motor vehicle emission

budget for conformity purposes that

includes both the highway and transit

components. If such a submittal is

made, EPA will address the revised

motor vehicle budget within the final

rulemaking on Connecticut’s 15 percent

plan.

EPA notes that the DEP derived these

emission values using the assumption

that the State’s motor vehicle I/M

program will achieve emission

reductions equivalent to the reductions

achievable from an enhanced I/M

program. As stated elsewhere in this

notice, EPA is aware that Connecticut

no longer intends to implement an

enhanced I/M program, but rather will

implement an ‘‘ASM 25/25’’ type

program beginning on January 1, 1998.

The DEP has committed to submittal of

a revised 15 percent plan which

contains emission estimates reflective of

the State’s ASM 25/25 motor vehicle

emission testing program. If the revised

15 percent plans are found to contain

adequate motor vehicle emission

budgets, those budgets will supersede

the budgets proposed for approval in

today’s notice. Additionally, the budgets

will be adjusted if the State’s evaluation

of the emission reductions obtained

from its I/M program reveal that the

projected benefits were inaccurate.

Proposed Action

The EPA has evaluated these

submittals for consistency with the

CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

The Connecticut 15 Percent ROP plans

will achieve enough reductions to meet

the 15 percent ROP requirements of

section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. In

addition, the Connecticut contingency

plans will achieve enough emission

reductions to meet the three percent

reduction requirement under sections

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the CAA.

However, the ability of these plans to

achieve the indicated quantity of

emission reductions depends in large

part on the successful implementation

of an automobile emission testing

program. By letter dated August 22,

1997, Connecticut indicated that the I/

M 240 program described within the

December 30, 1994 15 percent plans

would not be implemented, and that an

ASM 25/25 type program would be

implemented in its place beginning on

January 1, 1998. The letter states that a

preliminary analysis performed by the

DEP indicates that Connecticut can meet

its emission reduction requirements for

15 percent and contingency plan

purposes based on a January 1, 1998

start date for the ASM 25/25 I/M

program. The letter also committed to

submittal of a revised 15 percent and

contingency demonstration, and

submittal of a revised I/M program, by

April 1, 1998. Based on these

commitments, the EPA is proposing
55374 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

6Any conditions, such as a program evaluation,

that EPA attaches to its approval of the revised I/

M program may effectively also become conditions

on the continuing validity of Connecticut’s 15

percent plans, because the I/M program represents

a major portion of CT’s 15 percent reductions.

conditional interim approval of the

Connecticut 15 percent and contingency

plans 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.

EPA is proposing to grant conditional

approval of the Connecticut 15 percent

and contingency plans. The outstanding

issues with these SIP revisions are as

follows:

1. By January 1, 1998, Connecticut

must begin testing motor vehicles using

the ASM 25/25 program which is

described within the State’s August 22,

1997 letter.

2. By April 1, 1998, Connecticut must

submit revised 15 percent and

contingency plans as revisions to the

State’s SIP which show that the

emission reductions from the ASM 25/

25 automobile emission testing program,

when coupled with emission reductions

from other measures, will meet the

emission reduction goals of these

requirements.

3. By April 1, 1998, Connecticut must

submit a revised I/M program as a

revision to the State’s SIP.6

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act,

EPA may conditionally approve a plan

based on a commitment from the State

to adopt specific enforceable measures

by a date certain, but not later than 1

year from the date of approval. If EPA

conditionally approves the

commitments in a final rulemaking

action, the State must meet its

commitments as described in the

preceding paragraph. If the State fails to

do so, this action will become a limited

approval, limited disapproval at the

time of the State’s failure to meet one of

the conditions listed above. EPA will

notify the State by letter that this action

has occurred. At that time, this

commitment will no longer be a part of

the approved Connecticut SIP. EPA

subsequently will publish a document

in the Federal Register notifying the

public that the conditional approval

automatically converted to a limited

approval, limited disapproval. If the

State meets its commitments within the

applicable time frames, the

conditionally approved submission will

remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes

final action approving or disapproving

the Connecticut 15 percent and

contingency plans. If EPA disapproves

the Connecticut I/M program, the 15

percent and contingency plans will

receive limited approvals, limited

disapprovals at that time. If EPA

approves the Connecticut I/M program,

the 15 percent and contingency plans

will be fully approved in their entirety

and replace the conditionally approved

program in the SIP.

If EPA determines that it must issue

a limited disapproval rather than a final

conditional approval, or if the

conditional approval is later converted

to a limited approval, limited

disapproval, such action will trigger

EPA’s authority to impose sanctions

under section 179(a) of the CAA at the

time EPA issues the final limited

approval, limited disapproval or on the

date that Connecticut fails to meet a

commitment. In the latter case, EPA will

notify Connecticut by letter that the

conditional approval has been

converted to a limited approval, limited

disapproval and that EPA’s sanctions

authority has been triggered. In

addition, the final disapproval triggers

the federal implementation plan (FIP)

requirement under section 110(c).

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. section 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

sections 603 and 604). Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant economic 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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact

on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on Connecticut’s

failure to meet a commitment, it will not

affect any existing state requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal

disapproval of the state submittal does

not affect its state-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal does not impose a new

Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA

certifies that this disapproval action

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements nor does it substitute a

new federal requirement.

C. 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 actions

proposed in this notice do 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

proposes approval of pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55375

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Nitrogen

Oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: September 19, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–27856 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 24

[WT Docket No. 97–82; FCC 97–342]

Installment Payment Financing for

Personal Communications Services

(PCS) Licensees

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making the Commission

proposes auction rules and procedures

for the reauction of licenses surrendered

to the Commission pursuant to the

Commission’s decision in the Second

Report and Order in Docket 97–82, FCC

97–342 (released October 16, 1997).

These proposed rules are necessary to

ensure that any licenses surrendered to

the Commission can be awarded to

parties who are capable of providing

service to the public as rapidly as

possible. The intended effect of this

action is to seek comment on proposed

rules and procedures for the reauction

of all surrendered C block licenses.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

November 13, 1997. Reply comments

are due on or before November 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Bollinger, Auctions and Industry

Analysis Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

in WT Docket No. 97–82, adopted on

September 25, 1997, and released on

October 16, 1997, is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554. The complete

text may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 857–

3800. The complete Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making also is available

on the Commission’s Internet home

page (http://www.fcc.gov).

SUMMARY OF ACTION:

I. Background

1. On September 25, 1997, the Federal

Communications Commission

(Commission) adopted a Further Notice

of Proposed Rule Making seeking

comment on proposed changes to its C

block rules to govern the reauction of

any licenses or spectrum surrendered

pursuant to the provisions adopted in

the Second Report and Order. See

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules

Regarding Installment Payment

Financing for Personal Communications

Services (PCS) Licensees, Second Report

and Order, WT Docket No. 97–82, FCC

97–342 (released October 16, 1997)

(‘‘Second Report and Order’’).

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

2. In the Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, the Commission proposes

to reauction all licenses and spectrum

surrendered to the Commission under

the Second Report and Order. The

Commission believes that a reauction of

licenses surrendered to the Commission

will assure rapid provision of service to

the public. A reauction also will ensure

that these licenses are available to all

applicants in a rapid and fair fashion. A

simultaneous reauction of all the

licenses turned in to the Commission

will benefit all bidders because they

will be able to bid for a number of

licenses in a single reauction, instead of

a series of piecemeal auctions after

defaults and revocations, in which

opportunities for aggregation might be

less favorable.

A. Licenses to be Reauctioned

3. The Commission proposes that the

reauction include the following

licenses: (1) All licenses representing

the disaggregated spectrum surrendered

to the Commission under the

disaggregation option; (2) all licenses

surrendered to the Commission on or

before January 15, 1998, by incumbent

licensees who choose to take advantage

of the Commission’s prepayment or

amnesty options; and (3) all PCS C block

licenses currently held by the

Commission as a result of previous

defaults. By including all available

licenses in the reauction, the

Commission can efficiently and fairly

speed service to the public. In addition,

offering all available licenses will allow

for the most efficient aggregation of

licenses. The Commission seeks

comment on this proposal.

B. Eligibility for Participation

4. As the Commission stated in the

Second Report and Order, all

entrepreneurs, all entities that applied

for the original C block auction, and all

current C block licensees with

exceptions, are eligible to bid in the

reauction. The Commission seeks

comment on whether it should restrict

participation in the reauction to entities

that have not defaulted on any FCC

payments. See 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(5).

Should the Commission presume that

an entity’s prior default on payments for

an FCC license or authorization makes

that entity not financially or otherwise

fit to acquire a reauctioned C block

license? Alternatively, the Commission

could review financial qualifications

through several other means. For

instance, the Commission could allow

such entity to participate in an auction,

but if the applicant is a winning bidder,

set for expedited hearing the financial

qualifications of the bidder, and allow

the applicant to rebut a presumption

that it is not financially qualified. See

47 CFR 24.832(e), 1.2108(d)(3). Another

alternative would be to request that the

entity submit more detailed financial

information at the application stage, or

require that the entity submit a higher

upfront payment amount (e.g., a 50%

upfront payment requirement) to

participate in the reauction. With regard

to C block licensees who elect the

disaggregation, amnesty, or prepayment

options adopted in the Second Report

and Order, the Commission observes

that by making such election and related

payments they are not in default on

their C block licenses and, thus, would

not be restricted from participation in

the reauction (except as otherwise set

forth in the Second Report and Order).

C. Reauction Procedures

5. The Commission proposes below

auction design and application

procedures for the reauction of C block

licenses.

1. Competitive Bidding Design

6. The Commission proposes that all

licenses and spectrum surrendered be

awarded by means of a simultaneous

multiple-round electronic auction. The

Commission bases this proposal on its

desire to quickly auction available

licenses and thereby to promote the

most efficient assignment of the

spectrum. Consistent with the

Commission’s normal practice, the

specific procedural requirements of the

auction would be set out by public

notice prior to the auction. In general,