18712 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements

because affected sources are already

subject to these regulations under State

law. Therefore, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments or to

the private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this direct

final 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.

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 businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP 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, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on affected small entities.

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 action. The CAA

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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

section 7410(a)(2).

Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under

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 review under

Executive Order 12866.

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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 6, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(239)(i)(D) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(239) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District.

(1) Regulation 9, Rule 7, adopted on

September 15, 1993; Regulation 9, Rule

8, adopted on January 20, 1993;

Regulation 9, Rule 9, adopted on

September 21, 1994; Regulation 9, Rule

11, adopted on November 15, 1995;

Regulation 9, Rule 12, adopted on

January 19, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–9946 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI–6972a; FRL–5711–1]

Limited Approval and Limited

Disapproval of Implementation Plans;

Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is issuing a limited

approval, limited disapproval action on

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Rhode Island. The SIP revisions consist

of the State’s 15 Percent Rate of Progress

(ROP) Plan and contingency plan. 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.

DATES: This rule is effective May 19,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment, at the

Office of Ecosystem Protection,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02203,

and at the Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, Division of

Air Resources, 291 Promenade Street,

Providence, Rhode Island, 02908–5767.

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: On

October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55943), EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Rhode

Island. One portion of the NPR

consisted of a proposed limited

approval, limited disapproval of a

revision to the Rhode Island SIP

establishing a 15 Percent VOC emission

reduction plan and contingency plan.

The formal SIP revision was submitted

by Rhode Island on March 15, 1994 and

updated on May 23, 1994.

The 15 Percent and Contingency

plans submitted by Rhode Island outline
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18713

a strategy to reduce hydrocarbon

emissions in the Providence, Rhode

Island serious nonattainment area. The

specific components of the State’s plans

and the rationale for EPA’s proposed

action are explained in the NPR and

will not be restated here.

The Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management (DEM) was

the sole commenter on the NPR. Their

comments are contained within a

November 26, 1996 letter to Susan

Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of

Ecosystem Protection. The region has

responded fully to the RI–DEM

comments in a response to comments

memorandum available in the docket for

this action. A summary of these

comments and EPA’s responses appears

below.

Comment—Motor Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance (I/M): The DEM

acknowledges that implementation of an

I/M program has not yet occurred, but

points out that much work has occurred

over the past several years to initiate

such a program. The DEM feels that

EPA’s recent flexibility in the design of

such programs, while laudable, has

made it difficult to finalize any

particular program. A brief history of

the State’s efforts in this area is then

provided.

Response: EPA recognizes the actions

taken to date by Rhode Island with

regard to the implementation of an I/M

program in the State. However, Rhode

Island has not complied with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act and

EPA regulations which required that

states start such programs by January 1,

1995. Rhode Island correctly notes that

EPA has been modifying requirements

to provide greater flexibility to states for

I/M programs, and that EPA has allowed

time for states to take advantage of these

new provisions.

The National Highway Systems

Designation Act (NHSDA) provided an

opportunity with a very short time

window for states to submit test-andrepair programs without the penalty

previously utilized by EPA for

calculating emissions from such

programs, and in addition provided

time for program startup. The states

which took advantage of this

opportunity are required to start their

programs no later than November 15,

1997 in order for a full two year test

cycle to occur by November 15, 1999,

the date for 15% plan compliance.

(There is one NHSDA program that will

not start until 1998, but it has a one year

test cycle.)

Rhode Island did not submit an I/M

program under the NHSDA. Rhode

Island is not implementing the program

currently authorized in the State and

has not yet proposed a substitute

program. It is EPA’s understanding that

Rhode Island currently envisions

starting testing of motor vehicles in late

1998 or early 1999, and will most likely

adopt a biennial program. That schedule

puts the State about one year behind

virtually all other States that need

emission reductions from auto

emissions testing to meet the 15 percent

emission reduction requirement. Since

Rhode Island’s 15% plan relies heavily

upon the emission reductions from a

motor vehicle emission testing program,

the timeframe for achieving the 15

percent VOC reductions is similarly

delayed. In an August 1996

memorandum from John Seitz and

Margo Oge to the Regional Air Directors,

EPA articulated that emission

reductions from revised I/M programs

that occur before November, 1999 will

be allowed to count towards 15% plan

emission reductions. The continued

delay by Rhode Island in implementing

a motor vehicle emission inspection

program will make meeting the

November 1999 target date increasingly

difficult for the State.

Comment—Other Deficiencies: The

DEM notes that EPA’s proposal

identifies several minor discrepancies

between EPA’s calculation of

appropriate emission reductions and the

reductions calculated by the State, as

described below:

1. Comment—Submittal of Drafts,

AIM Credit: The RI–DEM notes that they

had submitted the regulations relied

upon within the 15% plan, as well as

the 15% plan itself, to EPA in draft

form. EPA reviewed and commented on

the draft regulations and the draft 15%

plan, and should have identified these

minor problems through that process

but did not. Several of the problems

cited, for example, the lack of inclusion

of windshield wiper fluid in the

consumer and commercial products

rule, could have easily been addressed

at that time. Additionally, EPA changed

the amount of credit states could take

due to the EPA’s pending national rule

on architectural and industrial

maintenance (AIM) coatings after Rhode

Island submitted its 15% plan. The

DEM feels that the EPA’s delay in

proposing approval or disapproval of

the State’s plan should not be grounds

for discounting credit due to a revised

estimate of the emission reductions

from the pending AIM rule.

Response: The DEM’s 15% plan, and

four VOC control regulations relied

upon in the plan to achieve emission

reductions were submitted in early

1994. EPA used the best information

available at the time drafts of these

documents were submitted to review

and analyze the emission reduction

claims made by the state, and made a

good faith effort to identify all errors at

that time. A minor discrepancy (0.05

tons per day) in the amount of credit

claimed from plant shutdowns was not

detected at that time, but was noted

subsequent to the final submittal by the

state.

During 1995, EPA finalized a report to

Congress on VOC emissions from the

consumer and commercial product

category. Information contained in that

report allowed EPA to perform a

detailed analysis of the emission

reductions claimed by Rhode Island

from its rule on this emission source

category. That review disclosed that the

State had overestimated the emission

reductions likely to result from this rule.

EPA agrees that Rhode Island

correctly calculated the amount of credit

likely to occur from the EPA’s pending

AIM rule based on EPA guidance

available at the time of the State’s

submittal. However, EPA later revised

the emission reduction estimate

downward based on a better

understanding of what the provisions of

the final rule would be. The DEM could

have revised its plan in light of the new

guidance. EPA believes that the best

information available should be used in

making determinations on the emission

reductions within the 15% plan, and

therefore feels that the most recent

guidance memorandum on credit from

the AIM rule is the appropriate tool to

use to analyze the State’s credit claim.

With regard to delays by EPA in

processing the State’s SIP, EPA did not

feel it was appropriate to move forward

with an approval or disapproval of

Rhode Island’s 15% plan given the

uncertain status of the State’s auto

emission testing program. EPA chose to

propose disapproval of the State’s plan

when it became clear that significant

delays were occurring in the

implementation of the program.

2. Comment—Air Toxics and NonControl Technique Guideline (CTG)

Reductions: The DEM’s comments

reflect that EPA’s only reason for not

approving the emission reduction credit

generated by these programs is that they

have not been submitted to EPA as SIP

revisions. The DEM notes that since the

reductions have occurred, according to

the Transportation Conformity

Regulation, these deficiencies could be

protected by a protective finding and

should not trigger the transportation

consequences indicated in the proposed

disapproval.

Response: Section 182(b)(1)(C) of the

Clean Air Act requires creditable

reductions to be in a State’s

implementation plan, EPA rules, or
18714 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Title V permits. As discussed within the

proposed action, Rhode Island can

receive credit from these programs by

incorporating the relevant documents

into the State’s SIP.

The DEM’s claim that pursuant to the

EPA’s Transportation Conformity

Regulation these deficiencies could be

protected by a protective finding is not

correct. EPA’s rationale for not

proposing to institute a protective

finding was based on the failure of the

state to implement an auto emission

testing program, not on the failure to

incorporate air toxics and non-CTG

orders into the State’s SIP. The failure

to implement the auto emission testing

program has made the State’s mobile

source emission budget unrealistic, and

therefore a protective finding was not

proposed.

3. Comment—Basis for Proposed

Disapproval: The DEM notes their

understanding that based on

conversations with EPA staff, the nonI/M deficiencies noted in the proposed

disapproval would not of themselves

have led EPA to propose disapproval of

the State’s 15% plan, and that a

recalculation of the State’s 15% plan

using updated growth assumptions

could negate the need for these non- I/

M reductions. DEM requests that EPA’s

final rule should clearly state that the

failure to secure I/M reductions formed

the basis of EPA’s action, and that the

other issues may not be an issue once

the ROP calculations are updated.

Response: EPA agrees that it based its

proposed disapproval action primarily

on the failure of the State to secure I/

M reductions. The proposed

disapproval notice contained a table

outlining the magnitude of the

noncreditable emission reductions from

which it can clearly be seen that the

failure to achieve reductions from I/M

caused the majority of the shortfall. EPA

also agrees that the other issues may not

be of consequence once the State revises

its plan. It is possible that the State will

design and implement an I/M program

that will achieve sufficient reductions to

yield an approvable 15% plan without

addressing EPA’s issues on the non-I/M

elements of the plan. But a great deal

depends on the design and timing of

Rhode Island’s I/M program, which is

still so uncertain that EPA cannot

predict whether Rhode Island will

ultimately need to revise the non-I/M

elements of its plan. Additionally EPA

notes that the State’s current intention

to revise its 15% plan to incorporate

updated growth assumptions presents

an opportunity for the State to make

these minor corrections and to submit

the SIP revisions necessary to make the

non-CTG and air toxics emission

reductions creditable towards the 15%

reduction.

Comment—Proposed Action,

Conformity Lapse: The DEM notes that

EPA’s proposal stipulates that a

conformity lapse will occur 120 days

after a final disapproval action, and that

after the lapse no new project level

conformity determinations may be

made. The DEM agrees that this is

consistent with EPA’s current

conformity rule, but points out that

under a proposed revision to the EPA’s

conformity rule published in July of

1996, a lapse would be imposed 2 years

after a final disapproval action, and that

a conformity freeze rather than a lapse

would be imposed 120 days after a final

disapproval action.

The DEM notes that the 15% plan was

submitted in the Spring of 1994, and

that EPA, by proposing action on the

plan at this point in time, gives the

appearance of attempting to rush the

action through so that a lapse will occur

in the State instead of the less punitive

freeze. The DEM feels this is

inappropriate, particularly in light of

the State’s good faith efforts to

implement I/M in the State.

Accordingly, DEM urges EPA to delay

finalizing the disapproval action until

the conformity amendments are

finalized. DEM, in turn, will continue to

move forward with I/M as expeditiously

as possible, and will introduce I/M

legislation in January of 1997. The DEM

also pledges to update its 15% plan and

submit a revised plan to the EPA as an

SIP revision.

Response: EPA did not propose action

on Rhode Island’s 15% plan in the fall

of 1996 in an attempt to ensure that a

conformity lapse, rather than a freeze,

occur. Contrary to Rhode Island’s

suggestion that EPA is hurrying this

action, EPA has been exceedingly

deliberate in its approach to Rhode

Island’s 15% plan and I/M program. The

EPA has delayed action on most 15%

plans because most of these plans relied

substantially on the reductions from I/

M programs, and most I/M programs

have been delayed. In 1995, EPA revised

its criteria for acceptable I/M programs.

The goal of the revised I/M criteria was

to give states flexibility in the design of

such programs. The NHSDA of 1995

outlines the EPA’s revised I/M criteria,

and set a timetable for States to

implement the revised criteria. Rhode

Island did not meet this timetable, and

it was that failure that finally led EPA

to propose disapproval of Rhode

Island’s 15% plan. Although EPA hopes

that Rhode Island is committed to

implementing I/M, the fact is that the

State is significantly behind similar

efforts being made by other States.

On January 17, 1997, EPA’s Regional

Administrator sent a letter to Governor

Almond addressing the issue of the

timing of a conformity lapse. Within

that letter, EPA notes that once the

proposed revisions to the conformity

rule are finalized, Rhode Island will be

subject to their provisions, regardless of

when the final disapproval action is

published for the State’s 15% plan.

Therefore, if EPA’s conformity rule is

finalized as it was proposed, and prior

to the expiration of the 120 day

conformity lapse clock required by the

current conformity rule, a conformity

freeze rather than a lapse will be

imposed on the state. If EPA’s

conformity rule is finalized after

expiration of the 120 day clock, a lapse

would go into effect. The lapse,

however, would convert to a freeze once

EPA’s conformity rule is finalized,

presuming the final conformity rule

reflects the position on this issue

articulated in the proposal.

Final Action

The EPA is issuing a limited approval,

limited disapproval of the Rhode Island

15 Percent ROP and Contingency plans.

The Rhode Island 15 Percent ROP plan

will not achieve enough reductions to

meet the requirements of section

182(b)(1) of the CAA. Additionally, the

portion of the State’s contingency plan

consisting of the two VOC control

regulations does not meet the

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

CAA. These regulations are triggered

upon failure of the State to meet ROP

requirements, but are not also triggered

by failure of the State to attain the

NAAQS for ozone by the area’s

attainment date as required by section

172(c)(9). In light of these deficiencies,

the EPA cannot grant full approval of

these plan revisions under Section

110(k)(3) and Part D.

However, the EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted plans under

section 110(k)(3) and section 301(a)

since the rules making up the 15 Percent

Plan and the Contingency Plan will

result in VOC emission reductions and

will strengthen the SIP. Thus, the EPA

is issuing a limited approval of the

Rhode Island 15 Percent Plan and

Contingency Plan under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

The EPA is also issuing a limited

disapproval of the Rhode Island 15

Percent plan under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) because the submittal does

not fully meet the requirements of

section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plans, and the

plan does not achieve the required

emission reductions. In addition, the

EPA is issuing a limited disapproval of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18715

1Protective finding means a determination by

EPA that the control strategy contained in a

submitted control strategy implementation plan

revision would have been considered approvable

with respect to requirements for emission

reductions if all committed measures had been

submitted in enforceable form as required by Clean

Air Act section 110(a)(2)(A).

the Rhode Island Contingency plan. The

plan does not meet the requirements of

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) for

contingency measures because the plan,

if implemented, will not achieve the

required 3 percent emission reduction.

Additionally, the plan does not fully

meet the requirements of section

172(c)(9) regarding implementation of

contingency measures if the area’s

attainment date is not met according to

the schedule outlined within the CAA.

Rhode Island has expressed its

intention to submit a revised vehicle I/

M program. The additional reductions

from vehicle I/M may serve to correct

the shortfall identified in this proposed

Federal Register Action. Alternatively,

Rhode Island could implement its

existing I/M program. To gain full

approval of its 15 percent plan, Rhode

Island will need to submit a revised

plan that documents the necessary

enforceable reductions, such as those

resulting from a revised I/M program or

other enforceable measures, to meet the

15 percent rate of progress requirements

and include sufficient contingency

measures to achieve a 3 percent

reduction.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: The

imposition of emission two for one

offset requirements, and loss of certain

highway funding. The 18-month period

referred to in section 179(a) will begin

on the effective date established in the

final limited disapproval action. If the

deficiency is not corrected within 6

months of the imposition of the first

sanction, the second sanction will

apply. This sanctions process is set forth

at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be

codified at 40 CFR 52.31. Moreover,

within two years of the final

disapproval of a required SIP

submission, the EPA shall promulgate a

federal implementation plan (FIP) under

section 110(c).

On January 18, 1995, the EPA made

a completeness determination on the

Rhode Island 15 percent plans with an

approval of the established motor

vehicle emission budget for use in

transportation conformity

determinations. Because the motor

vehicle emission budget is based to a

significant extent upon an I/M program

not being implemented by Rhode Island,

EPA has determined that budget is no

longer credible. EPA, therefore, is

rescinding the protective finding 1

through this final disapproval action.

EPA is notifying the State, the

Metropolitan Planning Organizations,

the U.S. Federal Highway Agency, and

the U.S. Federal Transit Administration

of the effect of a disapproval action on

conformity in Rhode Island. Under the

current Transportation Conformity

Regulations, the conformity status of the

transportation plan and transportation

improvement program shall lapse 120

days after the effective date of EPA’s

final disapproval without a protective

finding, and no new project-level

conformity determinations may be

made. Furthermore, no new

transportation plan, TIP, or projects may

be found to conform until another

control strategy implementation plan

revision fulfilling the same Clean Air

Act requirements is submitted, found

complete, and conformity to this

submission is determined.

The timeframe for the conformity

lapse, which as discussed above is 120

days after the effective date of EPA’s

final disapproval action, could be

changed by a revision to EPA’s

conformity rule. On July 9, 1996, EPA

published (61 FR 36112) a proposed

rule which would modify the

Transportation Conformity rule. A key

provision contained in the proposal was

a change in the penalty that occurs 120

days after a final disapproval action.

Instead of a lapse, a less punitive

conformity freeze was proposed to occur

in 120 days. In EPA’s proposed

conformity rule revision, the more

restrictive lapse would be imposed 2

years after a final disapproval action.

Therefore, if the conformity rule is

finalized as proposed, the conformity

lapse will take place 2 years from the

effective date of the final disapproval

action, and a freeze would be imposed

in the period between 120 days and 2

years following the effective date of this

action. Rhode Island will ultimately be

subject to the provisions contained in

EPA’s final conformity rule.

Nothing in this proposed rule should

be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any

future request for revision to any SIP.

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.

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 action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

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 of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air 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 CAA, preparation of a

regulatory 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 US 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The EPA’s limited disapproval of the

State request under sections 110 and

301, and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA

does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

limited disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does

not affect its State-enforceability.

Moreover, the EPA’s limited

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, the EPA certifies that this

limited disapproval action does not
18716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 74 / Thursday, April 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements, nor does it impose any

new Federal requirements.

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) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 June 16, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: March 8, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region I.

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 OO—Rhode Island

2. Section 52.2070 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2070 Identification of plan.

* * * * * *

(c) * * *

(50) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management on March

15, 1994. The revisions consist of the

State’s 15 Percent Plan and Contingency

Plan. EPA is approving only the

following portions of these submittals:

15 Percent Plan—the EPA is approving

the calculation of the required emission

reductions, and the emission reduction

credit claimed from surface coating,

printing operations, marine vessel

loading, plant closures (0.79 tons per

day approved out of 0.84 claimed),

cutback asphalt, auto refinishing, stage

II, reformulated gas in on-road and offroad engines, and tier I motor vehicle

controls. Contingency Plan—the EPA is

approving the calculation of the

required emission reduction, and a

portion of the emission reduction

credits claimed from Consumer and

Commercial products (1.1 tons per day

approved out of 1.9 tons claimed), and

architectural and industrial

maintenance (AIM) coatings (1.9 tons

per day approved out of 2.4 tons

claimed). EPA is concurrently

disapproving portions of these SIP

submissions, as discussed within

§ 52.2084(a)(2).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental

Management dated March 15, 1994,

submitting a revision to the Rhode

Island State Implementation Plan.

2. Section 52.2084 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2084 Rules and Regulations.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management on March

15, 1994. The revisions consist of the

State’s 15 Percent Plan and Contingency

Plan. EPA is disapproving the following

portions of these SIP submittals: 15

Percent Plan—Emission reductions

claimed from motor vehicle inspection

and maintenance program, non-CTG

sources, air toxic sources, and plant

closures (0.05 tons per day disapproved

out of 0.84 tons claimed). Contingency

Plan—a portion of the credit claimed

from consumer and commercial

products (0.8 tons per day disapproved

out of 1.9 tons claimed), and a portion

of the credit claimed from AIM coatings

(0.5 tons per day disapproved out of 2.4

tons claimed).

[FR Doc. 97–9949 Filed 4–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–001–0016; FRL–5802–6]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of PM10 Implementation

Plan for Denver, CO

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Governor of Colorado

for the purpose of bringing about the

attainment of the national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PM10) in the Denver

area. The SIP revisions were submitted

to satisfy certain Federal requirements

for an approvable moderate

nonattainment area PM10 SIP for Denver

and, among other things, contain

enforceable control measures. The bulk

of the revisions were submitted on

March 30, 1995. Revisions to Colorado

Regulation No. 13 (oxygenated fuels),

which is one of the control measures

relied on in the SIP, were adopted by

the Air Quality Control Commission