Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2939

59 FR 43956, 43962 (August 25, 1994);

58 FR 54364 (October 21, 1993).

3. CAA section 112(l). Requirements

for approval, specified in 40 CFR

70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5)

requirements for approval of a program

for delegation of section 112 standards

as promulgated by EPA as they apply to

Part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)

requires that the state’s program contain

adequate authorities, adequate resources

for implementation, and an expeditious

compliance schedule, which are also

requirements under Part 70. Therefore,

the EPA is also approving under section

112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 the state’s

program for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards for both Part 70

and non-Part 70 sources that are

unchanged from Federal standards as

promulgated.

4. CAA section 112(g). The EPA

issued an interpretive notice on

February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which

outlines EPA’s revised interpretation of

112(g) applicability. The notice

postpones the effective date of 112(g)

until after EPA has promulgated a rule

addressing that provision. The notice

sets forth in detail the rationale for the

revised interpretation.

The section 112(g) interpretive notice

explains that EPA is still considering

whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the

date of promulgation of the Federal rule

so as to allow states time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule, and that

EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until

EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of section 112(g), Kansas

must have a Federally enforceable

mechanism for implementing section

112(g) during the period between

promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of

implementing Federal regulations.

The EPA is aware that Kansas lacks a

program designed specifically to

implement section 112(g). However,

Kansas does have a preconstruction

review program that can serve as an

adequate implementation vehicle during

the transition period, because it would

allow Kansas to select control measures

that would meet Maximum Available

Control Technology, as defined in

section 112, and incorporate these

measures into a Federally enforceable

preconstruction permit.

EPA is approving Kansas’

preconstruction permitting program

under the authority of Title V and Part

70, solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) to the

extent necessary, during the transition

period between 112(g) promulgation

and adoption of a state rule

implementing EPA’s section 112(g)

regulations. Although section 112(l)

generally provides authority for

approval of state air programs to

implement section 112(g), Title V and

section 112(g) provide for this limited

approval because of the direct linkage

between the implementation of section

112(g) and Title V.

The scope of this approval is narrowly

limited to section 112(g), and does not

confer or imply approval for purposes of

any other provision under the Act (e.g.,

section 110). This approval will be

without effect, if EPA decides in the

final section 112(g) rule that sources are

not subject to the requirements of the

rule until state regulations are adopted.

The duration of this approval is limited

to 18 months following promulgation by

EPA of the 112(g) rule to provide

adequate time for the state to adopt

regulations consistent with the Federal

requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the state submittal and other

information relied upon for the final full

approval are contained in a docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this final

full approval. The docket is available for

public inspection at the location listed

under the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these

operating permit programs, the state of

Kansas has elected to adopt the program

provided for under Title V of the CAA.

These rules bind the state to perform

certain actions and also require the

private sector to perform certain duties.

To the extent that the rules being

proposed for approval by this action

will impose new requirements, sources

are already subject to these regulations

under state law. EPA has determined

that this proposed action does not

include a mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate or to the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

record keeping requirements.

Dated: December 18, 1995.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by adding the entry for Kansas to read

as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Kansas

(a) The Kansas Department of Health

and Environment program submitted on

December 12, 1994; April 7 and 17,

1995; November 14, 1995; and

December 13, 1995. Full approval

effective on February 29, 1996.

(b) [Reserved.]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–1722 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[Region II Docket No.147; NJ24–1–7249a,

FRL–5404–8]

Air Quality Designations: Deletion of

TSP Designations From New Jersey,

New York, Puerto Rico and Virgin

Islands

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).
2940 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is removing all total

suspended particulate (TSP) area

designations in New Jersey, New York,

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands

because they are no longer relevant.

EPA promulgated revised prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD)

increments for particulate matter so that

the PSD increments are now measured

in terms of particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than 10

microns (PM10) instead of TSP. Section

107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (Act)

authorizes EPA to eliminate all area TSP

designations once the PSD increments

for PM10 are promulgated.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 1,

1996 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by February 29,

1996. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: William S. Baker, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following address: Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air

Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 20th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1971, EPA promulgated primary

and secondary National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter to be measured as

TSP. Based upon better health effects

information, on July 1, 1987 (52 FR

242634), EPA replaced the TSP NAAQS

for particulate matter with a PM10

standard. On the same date, EPA

promulgated final regulations under 40

CFR part 51 for state implementation of

the revised NAAQS (52 FR 24672). In

the preamble to that action, EPA

announced that, because of the

importance of the section 107 area

designations to the applicability of the

PSD increments for TSP, it would retain

the TSP designations beyond the date

on which EPA approves a state’s revised

PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP).

This would protect the applicability of

the PSD increments for TSP until a PSD

increment for PM10 could be

established.

The 1990 Amendments to the Act

contained several pertinent provisions

relating to or affecting the TSP area

designations. Under section 107(d)(4)(B)

of the amended Act, Congress

established by operation of law the first

nonattainment area designations for

PM10, and mandated that areas not

initially defined as nonattainment are

considered to be unclassifiable.

Moreover, section 107(d)(4)(B)

provided that any designation for

particulate matter (measured in terms of

TSP) that the Administrator

promulgated prior to the date of

enactment of the 1990 Amendments

shall remain in effect for purposes of

implementing the maximum allowable

concentrations of particulate matter

(measured in terms of TSP) PSD

increments until the Administrator

determines that such designation is no

longer necessary for that purpose.

On June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31622), under

the authority of section 166(f) of the Act,

EPA published the final rulemaking

replacing the PSD increments for TSP

with equivalent PSD increments for

PM10, which became effective on June 3,

1994. As announced in the June 3, 1993

Federal Register notice, EPA intends to

eliminate the TSP area designations

from states and territories where the

Federal PSD program is in effect. EPA

has the legal responsibility for

implementing the PSD program in New

Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands pursuant to 40 CFR

52.1603, 52.1689, 52.2729, 52.2779,

respectively. However, EPA has

delegated the day-to-day PSD program

administration to the states of New

Jersey and New York. The delegation

agreement provides for automatic

adoption of the PSD increments for

PM10 once the increments became

effective.

Conclusion

In accordance with the information

provided above, the states affected by

today’s rule do not have PSD regulations

which have been approved by the EPA

under the applicable implementation

plan. Instead, the PSD regulations

contained in 40 CFR 52.21 (the Federal

PSD program) govern the review and

approval of permits to construct and

operate major stationary sources in

these areas. Pursuant to section 166(b)

of the Act, the new PSD increments for

PM10 became effective on June 3, 1994—

one year after promulgation.

Accordingly, EPA is today deleting from

the list of area designations in 40 CFR

part 81, all of the designations for TSP

in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands. Area

designations which indicate the

attainment status of each affected area

with respect to the PM10 NAAQS

already exist (56 FR 56694, November

1991), and the TSP area designations are

no longer needed.

Nothing in this rule should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any applicable

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to any SIP shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because EPA views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, the EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. Thus, this direct final action will

be effective April 1, 1996 unless, by

February 29, 1996, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this rule will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice 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

rule should do so at this time. If no

adverse comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective April 1, 1996. (See 47 FR

27073 and 59 FR 24059).

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. The deletion of TSP

tables in part 81 does not create any

new requirements.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2941

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 deletion

of no longer applicable TSP tables 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.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

Under section 307(b)(l) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this rule

must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days from date of publication.

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 rule may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter.

Dated: December 18, 1995.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator.

Part 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

§ 81.331 New Jersey

2. In § 81.331 the table entitled ‘‘New

Jersey—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.333 New York

3. In § 81.333 the table entitled ‘‘New

York—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.355 Puerto Rico

4. In § 81.355 the table entitled

‘‘Puerto Rico—TSP’’ is removed.

§ 81.356 Virgin Islands

5. In § 81.356 the table entitled

‘‘Virgin Islands—TSP’’ is removed.

[FR Doc. 96–1588 Filed 1–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 228

[FRL–5346–2]

Ocean Dumping; Final Site

Designation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA designates an Ocean

Dredged Material Disposal Site

(ODMDS) in the Atlantic Ocean offshore

Miami, Florida, as an EPA-approved

ocean dumping site for the disposal of

suitable dredged material. This action is

necessary to provide an acceptable

ocean disposal site for consideration as

an option for dredged material disposal

projects in the greater Miami, Florida

vicinity. This site designation is for an

indefinite period of time, but the site is

subject to continuing monitoring to

insure that unacceptable adverse

environmental impacts do not occur.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The supporting document

for this designation is the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Designation of an Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site offshore Miami,

Florida, August 1995, which is available

for public inspection at the following

locations:

A. EPA/Region 4, Coastal Programs

Section, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30365

B. Department of the Army, Jacksonville

District Corps of Engineers, Planning

Division, 400 West Bay Street,

Jacksonville, FL 32232–0019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher J. McArthur, 404/347–1740

ext. 4289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 102(c) of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended, 33

U.S.C. 1401 et seq., gives the

Administrator of EPA the authority to

designate sites where ocean disposal

may be permitted. On October 1, 1986,

the Administrator delegated the

authority to designate ocean disposal

sites to the Regional Administrator of

the Region in which the sites are

located. This designation of a site

offshore Miami, Florida, which is

within Region 4, is being made pursuant

to that authority.

The EPA Ocean Dumping Regulations

promulgated under MPRSA (40 CFR ch.

I, subchapter H, § 228.4) state that ocean

dumping sites will be designated by

promulgation in this part 228. A list of

‘‘Approved Interim and Final Ocean

Dumping Sites’’ was published on

January 11, 1977 (42 FR 2461 (January

11, 1977)). The list established the

existing Miami (‘‘Miami Beach’’) site as

an interim site. The site is now listed in

40 CFR 228.14(h)(6).

B. EIS Development

Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq., requires that federal agencies

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on proposals for

legislation and other major federal

actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment. The

object of NEPA is to build into the

Agency decision making process careful

consideration of all environmental

aspects of proposed actions. While

NEPA does not apply to EPA activities

of this type, EPA has voluntarily

committed to prepare EISs in

connection with ocean disposal site

designations such as this (see 39 FR

16186 (May 7, 1974).

EPA Region 4, in cooperation with the

Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (COE), has prepared

a Final EIS entitled, ‘‘Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

Designation of An Ocean Dredged

Material Disposal Site Located Offshore

Miami, Florida.’’ On September 1, 1995,

the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the

FEIS for public review and comment

was published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 45717 (September 1, 1995)).

Anyone desiring a copy of the EIS may

obtain one from the address given

above. The public comment period on

the Final EIS was to have closed on

October 2, 1995. However, the closing

date was extended until October 17,

1995 due to a request by the State of

Florida.

One comment letter was received in

support of the Final EIS and no letters

were received critical of the Final EIS.

The letter of support endorsed the Site

Management and Monitoring Plan

(SMMP) and the SMMP team.

The EIS has served as a Biological

Assessment for purposes of Section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act

coordination. By itself, site designation

of the Miami ODMDS will not adversely

impact any threatened or endangered

species under the purview of the

National Marine Fisheries Service