Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14327

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small business, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act 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 Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

C. 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 prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by

the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new 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 the 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 Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1), petitions for judicial

review of this action must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by May 27, 1997.

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) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607

(b)(2).]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 15, 1997.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(149) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(149) On March 4, 1996, the State

submitted revisions to the Knoxville/

Knox County portion of the Tennessee

SIP on behalf of Knoxville/Knox

County. These were revisions to the

enforcement authority requirements in

the Knoxville/Knox County regulations.

These revisions incorporate changes to

Knoxville’s Section 30.1 which are

required in the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 and 40 CFR part 51,

subpart I.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Knox County Air Pollution

Control Regulations, Sections 30.1.D,

30.1.F, and 30.1.G, adopted on January

10, 1996.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 97–7694 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CT27–1–7200a; A–1–FRL–5667–4]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of State Implementation

Plans; Connecticut: PM10 Prevention

of Significant Deterioration

Increments; and Approval of a Second

1-Year Extension of PM10 Attainment

Date for New Haven

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is fully approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Connecticut,

which replaces the total suspended

particulate (TSP) prevention of

significant (PSD) increments with

increments for PM10 (particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter less than

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers).

EPA is also fully approving

Connecticut’s request for a second 1-

year extension of the attainment date for

the New Haven PM10 nonattainment

area, based on monitored air quality

data for the national ambient air quality

standard for PM10 during the years

1993–95. These actions are being taken

under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action is effective on May

27, 1997, unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 25,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystem Protection, EPA-Region 1,

JFK Federal Building (CAA), Boston,

MA 02203. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection by appointment

during normal business hours at the

following locations: Office of Ecosystem
14328 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The EPA did not promulgate new PM10

increments simultaneously with the promulgation

of the PM10 NAAQS. Under § 166(b) of the Act,

EPA is authorized to promulgate new increments

‘‘not more than 2 years after the date of

promulgation of * * * standards.’’ Consequently,

EPA temporarily retained the TSP increments, as

well as the Section 107 areas for TSP.

Protection, EPA-Region 1, One Congress

Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA 02203;

Bureau of Air Management, Department

of Environmental Protection, State

Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford,

CT 06106; and Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff

Butensky at (617) 565–3583 or

butensky.jeff@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

PM10 PSD Increments

Section 107(d) of the 1977

Amendments to the Clean Air Act

authorized each State to submit to the

Administrator a list identifying those

areas which (1) do not meet a national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

(nonattainment areas), (2) cannot be

classified on the basis of available

ambient data (unclassifiable areas), and

(3) have ambient air quality levels better

than the NAAQS (attainment areas). In

1978, the EPA published the original list

of all area designations pursuant to

section 107(d)(2) (commonly referred to

as ‘‘Section 107 areas’’), including those

designations for total suspended

particulates (TSP), in 40 CFR Part 81.

One of the purposes stated in the Act

for the Section 107 areas is for

implementation of the statutory

requirements for PSD. The PSD

provisions of Part C of the Act generally

apply in all Section 107 areas that are

designated attainment or unclassifiable

[40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)]. Under the PSD

program, the air quality in an attainment

or unclassifiable area is not allowed to

deteriorate beyond prescribed maximum

allowable increases in pollutant

concentrations (i.e., increments).

EPA revised the primary and

secondary NAAQS for particulate matter

on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634),

eliminating TSP as the indicator for the

NAAQS and replacing it with the PM10

indicator. However, EPA did not delete

the Section 107 areas for TSP listed in

40 CFR Part 81 at that time because

there were no increments for PM10

promulgated at that time.1 States were

required to continue implementing the

TSP increments in order to prevent

significant deterioration of particulate

matter air quality until the PM10

increments replaced the TSP

increments.

EPA promulgated PSD increments for

PM10 on June 3, 1993. (See 58 FR

31622–31638.) EPA promulgated

revisions to the Federal PSD permitting

regulations in 40 CFR 52.21, as well as

the PSD permitting requirements that

State programs must meet in order to be

approved into the SIP in 40 CFR 51.166.

EPA or States with delegated State

programs were required to begin

implementation of the increments by

June 3, 1994. The implementation date

for States with SIP-approved PSD

permitting programs (including

Connecticut) would be the date on

which EPA approves each revised State

PSD program containing the PM10

increments. In accordance with 40 CFR

51.166(a)(6)(i), each State with SIPapproved PSD programs was required to

adopt the PM10 increment requirements

within nine months of the effective date

(or by March 3, 1995).

The PM10 PSD increments were set at

the following levels: 4 μg/m3 (annual

arithmetic mean) and 24 μg/m3 (24-hour

maximum) for Class I areas, 17 μg/m3

(annual arithmetic mean) and 30 μg/m3

(24-hour maximum) for Class II areas,

and 34 μg/m3 (annual arithmetic mean)

and 60 μg/m3 (24-hour maximum) for

Class III areas. There are no Class I or

III areas in Connecticut.

The implementation of the PM10

increments will utilize the existing

baseline dates and areas for particulate

matter. As such, particulate matter

increments, measured as PM10, already

consumed since the original baseline

dates established for TSP will continue

to be accounted for, but all future

calculations of the amount of

increments consumed will be based on

PM10 emissions beginning on the

implementation date of the PM10

increments (that is, today, the date of

EPA approval for Connecticut). For

further information regarding the PM10

increments, see the June 3, 1993 Federal

Register.

The requirements in 40 CFR 51.166

regarding prevention of significant

deterioration consist of three elements.

First, the State must conduct an

increment consumption analysis for

new major sources and modifications.

Second, the State must review the

potential increment consumption from

minor point, area, and mobile source.

Finally, the State must commit to a State

implementation plan revision upon

identification of any increment

violation. As discussed below, these

requirements have been fulfilled by the

State of Connecticut.

Clean Air Act Nonattainment

Requirements: EPA Actions Concerning

Designation and Classification

On the date of enactment of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (‘the Act’),

PM10 areas meeting the qualifications of

§ 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were

designated nonattainment by operation

of law. [See generally, 42 U.S.C.

§ 7407(d)(4)(B).] These areas included

all former Group I areas and any other

areas violating the PM10 standards prior

to January 1, 1989. On October 31, 1990

(55 FR 45799), EPA redefined a Group

I area for Connecticut as the City of New

Haven; the remainder of the state was

designated as Group III. Subsequently,

after enactment of the Act on November

15, 1990, New Haven was designated

moderate nonattainment for PM10 in 56

FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). All other

areas not designated nonattainment at

enactment were designated

unclassifiable.

States containing areas which were

designated as moderate nonattainment

by operation of law under § 107(d)(4)(B)

were required to develop and submit

SIPs to provide for the attainment of the

PM10 NAAQS. Under section 189(a)(2),

those SIP revisions were to be submitted

within 1 year of enactment of the Act

(November 15, 1991). The SIP revisions

were to provide for implementation of

reasonable available control measures/

technology (RACM/RACT) by December

10, 1993 and attainment of the PM10

NAAQS by December 31, 1994.

Reclassification as Serious

Nonattainment

EPA has the responsibility, under

sections 179(c) and 188(b)(2) of the Act,

of determining within 6 months after

December 31, 1994 whether initial

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

have attained the NAAQS. Section

179(c)(1) of the Act provides that these

determinations are to be based upon an

area’s ‘‘air quality as of the attainment

date,’’ and section 188(b)(2) is

consistent with this requirement. EPA

will make the determinations of

whether an area’s air quality is meeting

the PM10 NAAQS based upon air

quality data gathered at monitoring sites

in the nonattainment area and entered

into the Aerometric Information

Retrieval System (AIRS). This data will

be reviewed to determine the area’s air

quality status in accordance with EPA

guidance at 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix

K.

According to Appendix K, attainment

of the annual PM10 standard is

achieved when the annual arithmetic

mean PM10 concentration is equal to or

less than 50 μg/m3. Attainment of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14329

24-hour standard is determined by

calculating the expected number of

exceedences of the 150 μg/m3 limit per

year. The 24-hour standard is attained

when the expected number of

exceedences is 1.0 or less. A total of 3

consecutive years of clean air quality

data is generally necessary to show

attainment of the 24-hour and annual

standards for PM10. A complete year of

air quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR

Part 50, Appendix K, is comprised of all

4 calendar quarters with each quarter

containing data from at least 75 percent

of the scheduled sampling days.

Under § 188(b)(2) a moderate area

shall be reclassified as serious by

operation of law after the statutory

attainment date if the Administrator

determines that the area has failed to

attain the NAAQS. Under section

188(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the EPA must

publish a notice in the Federal Register

identifying those areas which failed to

attain the standard and must be

reclassified as serious by operation of

law.

Application for a 1-year Extension of

the Attainment Date

If the State does not have the

necessary number of consecutive clean

years of data to show attainment of the

NAAQS, a State may apply for an

extension of the attainment date.

Pursuant to § 188(d) of the Act, a State

may apply for and EPA may grant a 1-

year extension of the attainment date if

the State has: (1) Complied with the

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the applicable

implementation plan for the area, and

(2) the area has measured no more than

1 exceedence of the 24-hour PM10

standard in the year preceding the

extension year, and the annual mean

concentration of PM10 in the area for

such year is less than or equal to the

standard. In addition, as discussed

below, the EPA will consider the state’s

PM planning progress for the area. If the

State does not have the requisite

number of years of clean air quality data

to show attainment and does not apply

or does not qualify for an attainment

date extension, the area will be

reclassified as serious by operation of

law. Connecticut applied for and was

granted a 1-year extension of the

attainment date for New Haven,

effective November 11, 1995. (See 60 FR

47097, September 11, 1995.)

If an extension is granted, at the end

of the extension year, EPA will again

determine whether the area has attained

the PM10 NAAQS. If the State still does

not have 3 consecutive years of clean air

quality data, it may apply for a second

1-year extension of the attainment date.

In order to qualify for the second 1-year

extension of the attainment date, the

State must satisfy the same

requirements listed above for the first

extension. In addition, EPA will

consider the State’s PM10 planning

progress for the area in a manner similar

to its evaluation of the first extension

request. However, EPA may grant no

more than two 1-year extensions of the

attainment date to a single

nonattainment area. [See Section 188(d)

of the Act.]

Section 188(d) of the Act provides

that the Administrator ‘‘may’’ extend

the attainment date for areas that meet

the minimum requirements specified

above. The provision does not dictate or

compel that EPA grant extensions to

such areas. In exercising this

discretionary authority for PM10

nonattainment areas, EPA will examine

the air quality planning progress made

in the moderate area. EPA will be

disinclined to grant an attainment date

extension unless a State has, in

substantial part, addressed its moderate

PM10 planning obligations for the area.

In order to determine whether the State

has substantially met these planning

requirements the EPA will review the

States application for the attainment

date extension to determine whether the

State has: (1) Adopted and substantially

implemented control measures

submitted to address the requirement

for implementing RACM/RACT in the

moderate nonattainment area; and (2)

that reasonable further progress is being

met for the area. RFP for PM10

nonattainment areas is determined to be

linear emissions reductions made on an

annual basis which will provide

progress toward the eventual attainment

of the NAAQS in the area.

Summary of Connecticut’s PM10 PSD

Increment SIP Revision

In this section, EPA is acting on

revisions to the PSD permitting program

for the State of Connecticut.

Specifically, Connecticut DEP is

amending Subsection 22a–174–3(k) to

replace the TSP increments with the

federal increments for PM10. All other

regulations and requirements necessary

for full implementation of the PSD

program for PM10 are already in place.

In accordance with the requirements

in 40 CFR 51.66, Connecticut DEP is

also committing to implementation of

the following program elements for the

protection of the particulate matter

increments: increment consumption

analyses for new major sources and

major modifications; reviews of

potential increment consumption from

minor point, area, and mobile sources;

and a SIP revision upon identification of

an increment violation. The major

source baseline date (January 6, 1975)

and the minor source baseline date

(established in Connecticut on June 7,

1988), both for particulate matter

measured as TSP, will remain the same

for PM10. All of Connecticut, except the

City of New Haven, is currently

considered a Class II attainment area.

New Haven is currently classified as

nonattainment for PM10. The PSD

program for particulate matter does not

apply to the City of New Haven until

that area is reclassified to attainment.

Meanwhile, new major sources or major

modifications proposing to locate in the

City of New Haven will be required to

comply with the nonattainment

provisions of Subsection 22a–174–3(l)

of the Regulations of Connecticut State

Agencies.

Procedural Background Regarding the

PM10 PSD Increment SIP Revision

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. 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 13565,

April 16, 1992.] 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 under

Section 110(k)(a)(B) if a completeness

determination is not made by EPA

within six months after receipt of the

submission.

The State of Connecticut held a public

hearing on August 23, 1994 to entertain

public comment on the PSD SIP

revision. On January 13, 1995, the

Commissioner of the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

(the Governor’s designee) submitted

revisions to Subsection 22a–174–3(k) of

the Regulations of Connecticut Agencies

to incorporate the federal PM10 PSD

increments into the SIP and insure that

all elements for the federal PSD program

for particulate matter are adopted.

EPA reviewed to Connecticut DEP’s

SIP revision to determine completeness
14330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

2Section 189(c) requires that Part D SIPs include

quantitative milestones to document RFP towards

attainment. Every 3 years until EPA redesignates an

area to attainment, States must report on whether

milestones have been met. Connecticut’s SIP

commits CT DEP to submit quantitative milestone

and RFP reports to EPA every 3 years. For initial

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, the emissions

reductions made between SIP submittal and the

attainment date will satisfy the first quantitative

milestone. (See General Preamble 57 FR 13539.)

Since EPA believes it is reasonable to key the first

milestone to the SIP revision containing control

measures which will result in emission reductions

and since the PM10 attainment date was less than

3 years from the actual submittal date of CT DEP’s

SIP revision, CT DEP submitted—and EPA is

accepting—the emissions reductions associated

with the New Haven PM10 Attainment Plan SIP

revision (approved by EPA effective November 11,

1995) as meeting RFP and the first quantitative

milestone for New Haven. (See TSD dated May 10,

1996.)

3A review of the PM10 air quality data for New

Haven shows air quality monitors for this area

monitored 4 exceedences of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS during the 3-year period from 1993 to

1995. All exceedences occurred in 1993 at the

Yankee Gas monitor site (AIRS Site ID 09–009–

0021). The area did not have any exceedences of the

PM10 NAAQS in 1995.

shortly after their submittal, in

accordance with the completeness

criteria referenced above. In a letter

dated March 28, 1995, EPA-Region 1

informed the Connecticut Governor’s

designee that the submittal was

determined complete and explained

how the review and approval process

would proceed.

Summary of Connecticut’s Extension

Request

On March 22, 1996, the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

(Connecticut DEP) submitted a request

for second 1-year extension of the

attainment date for the New Haven

initial moderate PM10 nonattainment

area.

EPA’s Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division (AQSSD) has

prepared a guidance titled ‘‘Criteria for

Granting 1-Year Nonattainment Area

Attainment Dates, Making Attainment

Determinations, and Reporting on

Quantitative Milestones’’ (November 14,

1994 memorandum from AQSSD

Director Sally Shaver) which outlines

how to assess the adequacy of requests

for a 1-year extension of the attainment

date. The rationale for EPA’s approval

action are detailed in the Technical

Support Document (TSD), dated May

10, 1996. In summary, Connecticut has

fulfilled the specific elements of the

Clean Air Act and that guidance as

follows:

Upon application by any state, EPA

may extend for one additional year if

the State fulfilled two requirements

under section 188 (d) of the Clean Air

Act. First, a state must have complied

with all requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the applicable

implementation plan. Secondly, no

more than one exceedance of the 24

hour standard can occur in the area in

the year proceeding the extension year,

and the annual mean concentration of

PM10 in the area for such year must be

less than or equal to the standard level.

Connecticut has fulfilled these two basic

requirements.

Connecticut is implementing the EPAapproved PM10 SIP. Connecticut’s PM10

attainment plan and contingency

measures were approved by EPA on

September 11, 1995 (60 FR 47076).

Connecticut’s PM10 attainment plan

demonstrated that the implementation

of RACM was sufficient to attain and

maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

Furthermore, Connecticut has

demonstrated that RACT/RACM,

embodied in 7 consent orders, have

been adopted and submitted in the form

of a SIP revision and are being

implemented for New Haven. New

Haven has monitored no more than 1

exceedence during 1995, the year

preceding the extension year.2

Connecticut’s extension request states

that indeed the area recorded no

exceedences of the PM10 NAAQS in

1995, and is complying with the

applicable state implementation plan.

Furthermore, real emissions reductions

have been achieved.3

In addition to meeting the two

statutory requirements, Connecticut has

made the planning progress required by

EPA guidance. Connecticut has

demonstrated that RACT/RACM,

embodied in 7 consent orders, have

been adopted and submitted in the form

of a SIP revision and are being

implemented for New Haven.

Furthermore, real emissions reductions

have been achieved.

For further details regarding

Connecticut’s extension request and

how it meets EPA’s requirements, the

reader should refer to the TSD dated

May 10, 1996, on file at EPA’s Region

I office (contact listed above).

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the SIP revision

regarding PM10 PSD permitting and the

second 1-year extension of the PM10

attainment date for New Haven, as

submitted by the State of Connecticut.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency 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. This

action will be effective May 27, 1997

unless, by April 25, 1997, 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 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 May 27, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

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 E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

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

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

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

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301, 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 Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14331

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).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 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 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 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 the 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 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 May 27, 1997.

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).) EPA encourages interested

parties to comment in response to the

proposed rule rather than petition for

judicial review, unless the objection

arises after the comment period allowed

for in the proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Connecticut was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: December 5, 1996.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA—Region 1.

Part 52 of 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart H—Connecticut

2. Section 52.370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(70) to read as

follows:

§ 52.370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(70) Revision to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection on January

13, 1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

dated January 13, 1995 submitting a

revision to the Connecticut State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Amended Regulation of

Connecticut State Agencies: amended

Subsection 22a–174–3(k) ‘‘Abatement of

air pollution—New Source Review’’

(effective December 2, 1994).

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Nonregulatory portions of the

submittal.

3. Section 52.372 is amended by

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§ 52.372 Extensions.

* * * * *

(b) The Administrator hereby extends

until December 31, 1996, the attainment

date for particulate matter for the New

Haven PM10 nonattainment area, as

requested by the State of Connecticut on

March 22, 1996 and based on monitored

air quality data for the national ambient

air quality standard for PM10 during the

years 1993–95.

4. In § 52.374 the table is revised to

read as follows:

§ 52. 374 Attainment dates for national

standards.

* * * * *

Air quality control region and nonattainment area

Pollutant

SO2

PM10 NOX CO O3

Primary Secondary

AQCR 41: Eastern Connecticut Intrastate

Middlesex County (part) ..................................................................................... a b a a a e

All portions except cities and towns in Hartford Area

New London County ........................................................................................... a b a a a e

Tolland County (part) .......................................................................................... a b a a a e

All portions except cities and towns in Hartford Area

Windham County ................................................................................................ a b a a a e
14332 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Air quality control region and nonattainment area

Pollutant

SO2

PM10 NOX CO O3

Primary Secondary

AQCR 42: Hartford-New Haven-Springfield Interstate Hartford-New

Britain-Middletown Area

Hartford County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ....................................................... a b a a d e

Litchfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ...................................................... a b a a d e

Middlesex County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 .................................................... a b a a d e

Tolland County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ........................................................ a b a a d e

New Haven-Meriden-Waterbury Area

Fairfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ....................................................... a b a a d e

Litchfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ...................................................... a b a a d e

New Haven County

All portions except City of New Haven ............................................................... a b a a d e

City of New Haven ............................................................................................. a b g a d e

AQCR 43: New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Interstate New York-N.

New Jersey-Long Island Area

Fairfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ....................................................... a b a a d f

Litchfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ...................................................... a b a a d f

AQCR 44: Northwestern Connecticut Interstate

Hartford County (part) ........................................................................................ a b a a a e

Hartford Township

Litchfield County (part) See 40 CFR 81.307 ...................................................... a b a a a e

All portions except cities and towns in Hartford, New Haven, and New

York Areas

a. Air quality levels presently below primary standards or area is unclassifiable.

b. Air quality levels presently below secondary standards or area is unclassifiable.

c. November 15, 1995.

d. December 31, 1995.

e. November 15, 1999.

f. November 15, 2007.

g. December 31, 1996 (two 1-year extensions granted).

[FR Doc. 97–7688 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[NM 22–1–7103a; FRL–5709–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan for New Mexico:

General Conformity Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the New Mexico State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains

regulations for implementing and

enforcing the general conformity rules

which the EPA promulgated on

November 30, 1993. Specifically, the

general conformity rules enable the New

Mexico Environment Department to

review conformity of all Federal actions

(See 40 CFR part 51, subpart W—

Determining Conformity of General

Federal Actions to State or Federal

Implementation Plans) with the control

strategy SIPs submitted for the

nonattainment and maintenance areas

within the State except for actions

within the boundaries of Bernalillo

County. This approval action is

intended to streamline the conformity

process and allow direct consultation

among agencies at the local levels. The

Federal actions by the Federal Highway

Administration and Federal Transit

Administration (under Title 23 U.S.C. or

the Federal Transit Act) are covered by

the transportation conformity rules

under 40 CFR part 51, subpart T—

Conformity to State or Federal

Implementation Plans of Transportation

Plans, Programs, and Projects

Developed, Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act. The EPA will act on the New

Mexico transportation conformity SIP

under a separate action.

The EPA is approving this SIP

revision under sections 110(k) and 176

of the Clean Air Act (the Act). The

rationale for the approval and other

information are provided in this

document.

DATES: This action is effective on May

27, 1997, unless adverse or critical

comments concerning this action are

submitted and postmarked by April 25,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State general

conformity SIP and other relevant

information are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

Air Planning Section (6PDL),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202, telephone: (214)

665–7214.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico

Environment Department, 1190 St.

Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87502,

telephone: (505) 827–0042.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

J. Behnam, P.E., Air Planning Section

(6PDL), Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division , Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross