Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18521

must prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis assessing the impact of any

proposed or final rule on small entities.

5 U.S.C. sections 603 and 604.

Alternatively, USEPA 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 section 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, the

Administrator certifies 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

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

must undertake various actions in

association with 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. This Federal

action approves pre-existing

requirements under State or local law.

No new Federal requirements are

imposed. Accordingly, no additional

costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or 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,

USEPA 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 section

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting 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 KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(114) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(114) On November 12, 1996, the

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

submitted a request to incorporate

section(G)(9)(g) of Rule 3745–21–07 of

the Ohio Administrative Code into the

Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Section (G)(9)(g) provides an additional

exemption from organic compound

emission controls for qualifying new

sources. Because, in the process of

adopting section(G)(9)(g), minor

editorial changes were made to other

parts of Rule 3745–21–07, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

is incorporating all of Rule 3745–21–07

into the Ohio SIP. This will avoid

confusion by making the SIP approved

rule identical to the current State rule.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 3745–21–07 of the Ohio

Administrative Code, adopted October

7, 1996, effective October 31, 1996, as

certified by Donald R. Schregardus,

Director of the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency.

[FR Doc. 97–9752 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN73–1a; FRL–5807–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, USEPA is

approving a State Implementation Plan

Revision (SIP) request submitted by the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) on October 2, 1996,

to eliminate references to total

suspended particulates (TSP) while

maintaining the existing opacity

requirements. This SIP revision will

also enable the removal of the TSP

designation table for Indiana counties

from 40 CFR 81.315.

DATES: This action is effective on June

16, 1997, unless USEPA receives

adverse or critical comments by May 16,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notification will be published in

the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

USEPA’s analysis of it are available for

inspection at: Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ryan Bahr, Environmental Engineer,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 30, 1971, the USEPA

promulgated primary and secondary

standards for particulate matter (PM)

measured as total suspended

particulates (TSP) (36 FR 8166). On July

1, 1987 (52 FR 24633), the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
18522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

for PM was revised. With this revision,

the USEPA replaced TSP as the

indicator for PM with those particulates

with aerometric diameters less than 10

micrometers (PM–10).

However, USEPA continued to

regulate TSP for two reasons. The first

reason is that sections 110(l) and 193 of

the Clean Air Act (Act) prohibit

relaxation of the SIP. Therefore, opacity

limits which reference TSP have

remained as part of the SIP. The second

reason is that, at that time, the Act’s

statutory prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) increments were

still defined in terms of TSP (52 FR

24683).

Indiana requested on November 16,

1988, (and supplemented on September

10, 1992) to have eight areas which were

designated nonattainment for TSP

redesignated to attainment. More

specifically, Indiana requested that

portions of each of the following

counties be redesignated attainment for

TSP: Clark, Dearborn, DuBois, Lake,

Marion, St. Joseph, Vanderburgh, and

Vigo. The USEPA proposed to approve

this request on February 9, 1993 (58 FR

7762), on the condition that Indiana

supplement the submittal with rule

modifications ensuring that no

relaxations of the opacity limits were

going to occur upon redesignation. This

request was disapproved April 8, 1993

(58 FR 18161), because Indiana did not

submit these supplemental materials.

The TSP designations have remained

in the CFR and have been used to

determine PSD increments and the

applicability of certain sections of the

opacity regulations. The PM increments,

used for PSD purposes, were replaced

with increments based on PM–10 on

June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31621). On April 3,

1996, IDEM adopted a rule which

retains the opacity requirements of the

original rule and eliminates the

references to TSP designations. This

amendment became effective July 19,

1996, and was submitted to the USEPA

as a SIP revision request on October 2,

1996. The USEPA found this submittal

to be complete and issued a

completeness letter to IDEM on

February 27, 1997.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

This SIP revision request originated

so that the CFR could be simplified by

removing the TSP designations. Toward

this end, the SIP revision request

submitted October 2, 1996, eliminates

references to TSP from 326 Indiana

Administrative Code 5–1 (326 IAC 5–1)

and retains opacity limits which are

identical to those in the current SIP.

Indiana’s October 2, 1996, submittal

revises 326 IAC 5–1 to simply list each

of the current TSP nonattainment areas

instead of referencing the TSP

designations in 40 CFR 81.315; identical

limits apply to these areas. The opacity

limit which applies to all areas in

Indiana not on the ‘‘nonattainment’’ list

and not having a site or area specific

limit is also retained.

The main concern in making this

revision is that the areas currently

designated attainment, unclassifiable,

and nonattainment for TSP retain their

respective opacity limitations as written

in the current SIP. Section 193 of the

Act specifically states that any

regulations which were in effect before

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

can not be modified ‘‘in any manner

unless the modification insures

equivalent or greater emissions

reductions of such air pollutants.’’ Since

identical opacity limits are retained for

the respective areas, this requirement is

satisfied. Modeling was not required for

this submittal because the requirements

are as strict as those in the current SIP.

One other concern is that any existing

baseline dates and areas for determining

the consumption of PSD increment

remain intact. Any PM increment

consumed since the original baseline

date established for TSP will continue

to be accounted for. This rulemaking in

no way changes the existing framework

of the PSD regulations. For more

information on these regulations, refer

to the final rule for PM PSD published

June 3, 1993 (58 FR 31621).

III. Final Rulemaking Action

USEPA is approving the SIP revision

request submitted by the State of

Indiana on October 2, 1996. This action

revises the SIP opacity regulation

codified at 326 IAC 5–1: Opacity

Limitations, Section 1: Applicability of

Rule and Section 2: Visible emission

limitations. This action also amends 40

CFR 81.315 by removing the table

entitled ‘‘Indiana-TSP’’. The USEPA has

completed an analysis of this SIP

revision request based on a review of

the materials presented, and has

determined it to be approvable.

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because USEPA

views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the USEPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective on June 16, 1997

unless, by May 16, 1997, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the USEPA receives such

comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent rulemaking

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 USEPA 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 on June 16, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary D.

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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 section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

(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, the

Administrator certifies 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

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 18523

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA

must undertake various actions in

association with 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. 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 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 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,

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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

National parks, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Wilderness areas.

Dated: March 28, 1997.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(119) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(119) Approval—On October 2, 1996,

the State of Indiana submitted a State

Implementation Plan revision request to

eliminate references to total suspended

particulates (TSP) while maintaining the

existing opacity requirements. The SIP

revision became effective July 19, 1996.

The SIP revision request satisfies all

applicable requirements of the Clean Air

Act.

(i) Incorporation by reference. 326

Indiana Administrative Code 5–1:

Opacity Limitations, Section 1:

Applicability of Rule, Section 2: Visible

emission limitations. Adopted by the

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board

April 3, 1996. Filed with the Secretary

of State June 19, 1996. Published at the

Indiana Register, Volume 19, Number

11, August 1, 1996 (19 IR 3049).

Effective July 19, 1996.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart C—[Amended]

2. Section 81.315 is amended by

removing the table entitled ‘‘IndianaTSP’’.

[FR Doc. 97–9794 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[001–7201a; A–1–FRL–5808–7]

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance;

Connecticut/Maine/Massachusetts/

New Hampshire/Rhode Island/

Vermont; Modification of the Ozone

Monitoring Season

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule contains

revisions to 40 CFR part 58, Appendix

D, the Ozone Monitoring Season By

State Table in Section 2.5. EPA’s

approval of these revisions will change

the ozone monitoring season for

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and

Vermont to April 1–September 30.

DATES: This action will become effective

June 16, 1997, unless EPA receives

adverse or critical comments by May 16,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Don Porteous, Acting Director, Office of

Environmental Measurement &

Evaluation, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, 60

Westview Street, Lexington, MA 02173.

Copies of the documents and data

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment at the

Office of Environmental Measurement &

Evaluation Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, 60 Westview Street, Lexington,

MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Jane Cuzzupe, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, Office of

Environmental Measurement &

Evaluation, Ecosystem Assessment, 60

Westview Street, Lexington, MA 02173.

Telephone (617) 860–4383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

During 1993 and 1994, three New

England states submitted proposals to

EPA Region 1 to shorten their ozone

seasons. In order to maintain a

consistent ozone season throughout the

Region, EPA Region 1 made the decision

to process all of the requests together as

one package. All of the states were

notified of this decision. On February 7,

1995 (after numerous discussions with

the states, and not wanting to delay

processing these requests), EPA Region

1 sent formal requests to NH, VT and RI

asking them if they were interested in

submitting proposals to shorten their

ozone seasons. As a result, the states

submitted their proposals to the Region.

All six New England States have now

submitted proposals to EPA Region 1 to

shorten their ozone seasons. The current

ozone season for EPA Region 1 is April

1—October 31. The dates of the state’s

request and their proposals are

summarized below: