67006 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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).

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 February 23,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule 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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: November 26, 1997.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator, Region II.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations 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 et seq.

Subpart HH—New York

2. Section 52.1670 is amended by

adding new paragraph (c)(93) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

* * * * *

(93) Revisions to the New York State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone

concerning the control of volatile

organic compounds from petroleum and

volatile organic compound storage and

transfer, surface coating and graphic arts

sources, dated March 8, 1993 submitted

by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

(i) Incorporation by reference:

(A) Amendments to Title 6 of the New

York Code of Rules and Regulations

(NYCRR) Part 200 ‘‘General Provisions,’’

Part 201 ‘‘Permits and Certificates,’’ Part

228 ‘‘Surface Coating Processes,’’ and

Part 229 ‘‘Petroleum and Volatile

Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer,’’

Part 233 ‘‘Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic

Manufacturing Processes,’’ and Part 234

‘‘Graphic Arts,’’ effective April 4, 1993.

3. Section 52.1679 is amended by

revising the six entries for Parts 200,

201, 228, 229, 233 and 234 to the table

in numerical order to read as follows:

§ 52.1679 EPA—approved New York State

regulations.

New York State regulationState effective dateLatest EPA approval

date Comments

Part 200, General Provisions.4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

Redesignation of nonattainment areas to attainment areas (200.1(mm))

does not relieve a source from compliance with previously applicable requirements as per letter of Nov. 13, 1981 from H. Hovey, NYSDEC.

Part 201, Permits and

Certificates.

4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

* * * * *

Part 228, Surface Coating Processes:

228.1–228.10 ........... 4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 228.3(e)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.

Part 229, Petroleum and

Volatile Organic Liquid

Storage and Transfer.

4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 229.3(g)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.

* * * * *

Part 233, Pharmaceutical

and Cosmetic Processes.

4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 223.3(h)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.

Part 234, Graphic Arts .... 4/4/93 December 23, 1997, FR

67006.

SIP revisions submitted in accordance with Section 234.3(f)(1) are effective only if approved by EPA.

[FR Doc. 97–33317 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–44–1–6866(a); FRL–5630–1]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of State Implementation

Plan for Colorado; Carbon Monoxide

Contingency Measures for Colorado

Springs and Fort Collins

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA approves the State

implementation plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Colorado with

a letter dated February 18, 1994. This

submittal addresses the Federal Clean

Air Act requirement to submit

contingency measures for carbon

monoxide (CO) for the Colorado Springs

and Fort Collins areas designated as

nonattainment for the CO National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). The rationale for the approval

is set forth in this document; additional

information is available at the address

indicated below.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67007

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are to

the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). The

Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S.

Code at 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401, et seq.

2Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas generally and Subpart 3

contains provisions specifically applicable to CO

nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and

Subpart 3 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to

clarify the relationship among these provisions in

the ‘‘General Preamble’’ and, as appropriate, in

today’s document and supporting information.

3Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2).

DATES: This action is effective on

February 23, 1998 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

January 22, 1998. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Jeff Houk at the Region VIII

address. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, Air Programs, 999 18th

Street, Third Floor, South Terrace,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2405; and

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division,

4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver,

Colorado 80222–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Houk, State Program Support Unit, EPA

Region VIII, telephone (303) 312–6446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Colorado Springs and Fort

Collins, Colorado areas were designated

nonattainment for CO and classified as

moderate under Sections 107(d)(4)(A)

and 186(a) of the Clean Air Act, upon

enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694

(Nov. 6, 1991); 40 CFR 81.306 (Colorado

Springs Area and Fort Collins Area).

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate CO nonattainment areas

are set out in Subparts 1 and 3 of Part

D, Title I of the Act.2 The EPA has

issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’ describing

EPA’s preliminary views on how EPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Act,

including those State submittals

containing moderate CO nonattainment

area SIP requirements [see generally 57

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992)]. Because EPA is

describing its interpretations here only

in broad terms, the reader should refer

to the General Preamble for a more

detailed discussion of the

interpretations of Title I advanced in

this action and the supporting rationale.

Moderate CO areas with a design

value of less than or equal to 12.7 parts

per million (including Colorado Springs

and Fort Collins) are not required by the

Act to submit a SIP demonstrating

attainment of the NAAQS. Rather, these

areas are required to submit certain SIP

elements, including an oxygenated fuels

program, an emissions inventory, and

contingency measures.

Those States containing moderate CO

nonattainment areas such as Colorado

Springs and Fort Collins were required

to submit contingency measures by

November 15, 1993 (see 57 FR 13532).

These measures must become effective,

without further action by the State or

EPA, upon a determination by EPA that

the area has failed to achieve reasonable

further progress (RFP) or to attain the

CO National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable

statutory deadline (December 31, 1995).

See Section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13532–

13533.

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing EPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566).

The Governor of Colorado submitted

revisions to the SIP for Colorado Springs

and Fort Collins with a letter dated

February 18, 1994. The revisions

address contingency measures for CO.

EPA is now approving the Colorado

Springs and Fort Collins contingency

measures as adopted by the State of

Colorado on November 12, 1993 and

submitted to EPA by Colorado’s

Governor on February 18, 1994.

A. Analysis of State Submission

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing.

EPA also must determine whether a

submittal is complete and therefore

warrants further EPA review and action

(see Section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565).

The EPA’s completeness criteria for SIP

submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V. The EPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60

days of receiving a submission.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by EPA six months after receipt of the

submission.

To entertain public comment, the

State of Colorado, after providing

adequate notice, held a public hearing

on November 12, 1993 to address the

Colorado Springs and Fort Collins

contingency measures. Following the

public hearing, the Colorado Springs

and Fort Collins contingency measures

were adopted by the State.

The contingency measures were

submitted as a proposed revision to the

SIP by the Governor with a letter dated

February 18, 1994. The submittal was

received on February 22, 1994, and was

deemed complete by operation of law

on August 22, 1994.

B. Contingency Measures

The Clean Air Act requires States

containing certain CO nonattainment

areas to adopt contingency measures

that will take effect without further

action by the State or EPA upon a

determination by EPA that an area failed

to make reasonable further progress or

to timely attain the applicable NAAQS,

as described in section 172(c)(9). See

generally 57 FR 13532–13533. Pursuant

to section 172(b), the Administrator has

established a schedule providing that

states containing moderate CO

nonattainment areas with a design value

of less than or equal to 12.7 parts per

million (ppm) shall submit SIP revisions

containing contingency measures no

later than November 15, 1993. (See 57

FR 13532.) (‘‘Not Classified’’ areas, that

is, areas that had a design value less

than the 9.0 ppm CO NAAQS at the

time of designation, are not required to

submit contingency measures.)

EPA guidance (‘‘Technical Support

Document to Aid States with the

Development of Carbon Monoxide State

Implementation Plans,’’ EPA–452/R–

92–003, July 1992) recommends that

implementation of the contingency

measures provide vehicle miles

travelled (VMT) reductions or emission

reductions sufficient to counteract the

effect of one year’s growth in VMT.

However, the Act does not specify how

many contingency measures are needed

or the magnitude of emissions

reductions that must be provided by

these measures. EPA believes that

contingency measures must provide for

continued progress toward the

attainment goal. This would be the

minimum requirement and is consistent

with the statutory scheme.

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act specifies

that contingency measures shall ‘‘take

effect * * * without further action by

the State, or the [EPA] Administrator.’’

EPA has interpreted this requirement (in
67008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the General Preamble at 57 FR 13533) to

mean that no further rulemaking

activities by the State or EPA would be

needed to implement the contingency

measures. In general, EPA expects all

actions needed to affect full

implementation of CO contingency

measures to occur within 12 months

after EPA notifies the State of its failure

to attain the standard or make RFP.

EPA recognizes that certain actions,

such as notification of sources,

modification of permits, etc., may be

needed before some measures could be

implemented. However, States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further administrative action on their

part and with no additional rulemaking

action such as public hearing or

legislative review.

The CO contingency measures for

Colorado Springs and Fort Collins were

developed by the Air Pollution Control

Division (APCD) of the Colorado

Department of Health (CDH), now the

Colorado Department of Public Health

and Environment (CDPHE). After a

public hearing on November 12, 1993,

the Colorado Air Quality Control

Commission (AQCC) adopted the

measures. The Governor submitted the

contingency measures to EPA with a

letter dated February 18, 1994.

Within 12 months of notification by

EPA that either the Colorado Springs or

Fort Collins CO nonattainment area has

failed to attain the CO NAAQS by

December 31, 1995, the APCD will

implement the contingency measure,

the Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) Program, codified in

Colorado Regulation No. 11. The

enhanced I/M program produces

substantial additional emission

reductions over the ‘‘Basic’’ I/M

program currently in operation in the

Colorado Springs and Fort Collins areas.

The enhanced I/M program is currently

in operation in the Denver/Boulder and

Longmont CO nonattainment areas. EPA

conditionally approved the Colorado

Enhanced I/M program in the Federal

Register on November 8, 1994 (59 FR

55584).

The program would apply in those

portions of El Paso County (Colorado

Springs) and Larimar County (Fort

Collins) in which the Basic I/M program

is currently in operation. These areas,

known as the ‘‘AIR Program Area’’

within each County, are described in the

authorizing legislation for the enhanced

I/M program.

C. Effectiveness of the Contingency

Measures

In Colorado Springs, emissions from

one year’s growth in VMT were

estimated by the Pikes Peak Area

Council of Governments (the

Metropolitan Planning Organization for

the area) at 14.4 tons per day.

Reductions from the enhanced I/M

program were estimated at

approximately 34 tons per day. EPA’s

emissions reduction requirements are

adequately met with the

implementation of this contingency

measure for Colorado Springs.

In Fort Collins, APCD estimates that

mobile source emissions would be

lowered by 13.95% with the

implementation of the enhanced I/M

program. Since the estimated one year

growth of VMT is 3% in Fort Collins,

and the CO emissions inventory for this

area reports that approximately 80% of

the CO emissions in the nonattainment

area are attributable to mobile sources,

the reductions from the enhanced I/M

program provide more than a sufficient

amount of reduction as a contingency

measure. Therefore, EPA’s emissions

reduction requirements are adequately

met with the implementation of this

contingency measure for Fort Collins.

D. Enforceability Issues

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (see Sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). The EPA

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). State

implementation plan provisions also

must contain a program to provide for

enforcement of control measures and

other elements in the SIP [see Section

110(a)(2)(C)].

The specific measures contained in

the Colorado Springs and Fort Collins

contingency plan are addressed above in

Section II.B. Regulation No. 11, which

implements this contingency measure,

is legally enforceable by APCD. There

are civil penalties, which increase with

each violation, for noncompliance with

the regulation, as well as a prohibition

on the registration of any vehicle which

has not complied with the enhanced

I/M program and substantial penalties

for nonregistration of vehicles. The

enforceability of Regulation No. 11 is

addressed in more detail in EPA’s

November 8, 1994 Federal Register

document conditionally approving the

program. The State of Colorado has a

program that will ensure that the

contingency measures are adequately

enforced. EPA believes that the State’s

existing air enforcement program will be

adequate.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Colorado’s SIP

revisions, submitted by the Governor

with a letter dated February 18, 1994,

for the Colorado Springs and Fort

Collins, Colorado nonattainment areas.

This submittal addressed CO

contingency measure plans that were

due on November 15, 1993. These plans

involve the implementation of the

Colorado Enhanced Vehicle I/M

Program in the Colorado Springs and

Fort Collins CO nonattainment areas in

the event that EPA makes a

determination that either area has failed

to attain the CO NAAQS by the statutory

attainment date of December 31, 1995.

A copy of the State’s SIP revision is

available at the address listed in the

ADDRESSES section above.

The EPA is publishing the action on

the contingency measure submittal

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the contingency measure SIP

revision should adverse or critical

comments be filed. Thus, under the

procedures established in the May 10,

1994 Federal Register, today’s direct

final action will be effective February

23, 1998 unless, by January 22, 1998,

adverse or critical comments are

received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective February 23,

1998.

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the CAA. The EPA has determined that

this action conforms with those

requirements.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to a SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67009

IV. 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 has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., the 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, the 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations that are less than 50,000.

SIP revision approvals 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, the EPA certifies

that this proposed rule would 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

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of State

actions. The CAA forbids the EPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–266 (S. Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).

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 approval

action promulgated today 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

approves 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 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 this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by February 23,

1998. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule 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,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Motor

vehicle pollution, Carbon monoxide,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 28, 1995.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

Editorial note: This document was

received at the Office of the Federal Register

December 17, 1997.

Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations 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 et seq.

Subpart G—Colorado

2. Section 52.320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(71) to read as

follows:

§ 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c)* * *

(71) The Governor of Colorado

submitted carbon monoxide

contingency measures for Colorado

Springs and Fort Collins with a letter

dated February 18, 1994. This submittal

was intended to satisfy the requirements

of section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act

for contingency measures which were

due on November 15, 1993.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Colorado Air Quality Control

Commission Nonattainment Areas

regulation, 5 CCR 1001–20, Section VI,

City of Fort Collins Nonattainment Area,

and Section VII, Colorado Springs

Nonattainment Area, adopted on

November 12, 1993, effective on

December 30, 1993.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–33320 Filed 12–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[AD–FRL–5939–8]

RIN 2060–AF71

Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule for

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for

Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule

for Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for

Lead. EPA published the direct final

rule on November 5, 1997 at 62 FR

59813. As stated in that Federal

Register document, if adverse or critical

comments were received by December

5, 1997, the effective date would be

delayed and notice would be published

in the Federal Register. EPA

subsequently received adverse