Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27891

1The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the Act. See Public Law

No. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399. References herein are

to the Clean Air Act, as amended (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’).

The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the

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

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 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 or District

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).

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 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 an October 4,

1993 memorandum from Michael H.

Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The OMB has

exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 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

July 25, 1995. 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 approving the District of

Columbia Emission Statement SIP

submittal may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements.

(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: January 25, 1995.

Peter H. Kostmayer,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart J of chapter

I, title 40 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 J—District of Columbia

2. Section 52.470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(32) to read as

follows:

§ 52.470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(32) Revisions to the District of

Columbia Regulations State

Implementation Plan submitted on

October 22, 1993 by the Government of

the District of Columbia Department of

Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of October 22, 1993 from

the Government of the District of

Columbia Department of Consumer and

Regulatory Affairs transmitting a revised

regulation which require owners of

stationary sources to submit emission

statements annually.

(B) D.C. ACT 10–56 amendments to

District of Columbia Air Pollution

Control Act of 1984, Section 20 DCMR

199, specifically the addition of new

definitions, and the addition of Section

20 DCMR 500.7. Effective on September

30, 1993.

[FR Doc. 95–12927 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[ID12–1–6992a; FRL -5206–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: State of Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On August 25, 1994, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

issued a direct final rule approving the

State Implementation Plan for the

Pinehurst, Idaho, PM–10 (particulate

matter with an aerodynamic diameter of

less than or equal to a nominal ten

micrometers) nonattainment area (59 FR

43745 (August 25, 1994)). In this

rulemaking action, EPA is approving the

provisions of that plan for the area just

outside the City of Pinehurst which was

designated nonattainment in January

1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This direct final rule

will be effective on July 25, 1995 unless

adverse or critical comments are

received by June 26, 1995. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, EPA, Air & Radiation Branch

(AT–082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Copies of material submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Air &

Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue

(AT–082), Seattle, Washington 98101,

and the State of Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton,

Boise, ID 83720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Cole, EPA, Idaho Operations

Office, 1435 N. Orchard St., Boise, ID

83706, (208) 334–9555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 25, 1994, EPA issued a

direct final rule approving the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Pinehurst PM–10 nonattainment area in

Shoshone County, Idaho. See 59 FR

43745. The rule became effective

October 24, 1994. In that document,

EPA described its approval action as

covering the Pinehurst, Idaho

nonattainment area that was designated

nonattainment for PM–10 and classified

as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B)

and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act upon

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (citing 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991)).1 The document

inadvertently failed to explain,

however, that, effective January 20,

1994, EPA approved the redesignation

of an additional area in Shoshone

County, adjacent to the Pinehurst

nonattainment area, as nonattainment

for PM–10. See 58 FR 67334, 67339

(December 21, 1993) and 40 CFR 81.313

(codified air quality designations for the

State of Idaho). Further, the August 25,

1994 document did not explain that the

SIP revision submitted by Idaho to

address certain moderate PM–10

nonattainment planning requirements

for Pinehurst also applied to the

adjacent moderate PM–10

nonattainment area.

II. This Action

In this action, EPA is approving the

PM–10 SIP submitted by the State of

Idaho on April 14, 1992 and described

in the August 25, 1994 Federal Register
27892 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

document (59 FR 43745), as meeting

certain Clean Air Act moderate PM–10

nonattainment area planning

requirements for the portion of the

Shoshone County, Idaho nonattainment

area outside the City of Pinehurst.

In the Federal Register document

approving the redesignation of the area

just outside the City of Pinehurst

(hereinafter, the ‘‘Pinehurst expansion

area’’), EPA noted that if the moderate

area PM–10 SIP developed by the State

for the City of Pinehurst also addressed

the Pinehurst expansion area and was

ultimately approved by EPA, it would

satisfy the applicable planning

requirements and therefore be

unnecessary for the State to submit a

separate moderate area plan addressing

the Pinehurst expansion area. See 58 FR

67339. The control strategies,

attainment demonstration and other

plan elements of the SIP submitted by

the State for the City of Pinehurst did in

fact cover the nonattainment boundary

as revised effective January 20, 1994,

although EPA inadvertently failed to

discuss this in its August 25, 1994

approval action. There are no

differences in the manner in which the

control strategies and other plan

elements apply within the City of

Pinehurst, on the one hand, and within

the Pinehurst expansion area, on the

other hand. The plan cites the

resolution of the Pinehurst City Council

supporting the voluntary wood burning

curtailment program as a factor in the

program’s effectiveness. However, there

is no reason to expect that the program

would have less effect in the Pinehurst

expansion area, which is just outside

city limits. Additionally, the woodstove

replacement and weatherizations

programs are being applied to the

Pinehurst expansion area. Therefore, the

evaluation and conclusions in EPA’s

August 25, 1994 action approving the

SIP for the City of Pinehurst apply

equally to the Pinehurst expansion area.

Thus, EPA is approving the Idaho SIP

revision addressed in the August 25,

1994, Federal Register document as also

satisfying certain moderate PM–10

nonattainment planning requirements

for the additional PM–10 nonattainment

area in Shoshone County referred to as

the Pinehurst expansion area. See 40

CFR 81.313. EPA concludes that the

State has satisfied the requirements

calling for: reasonably available control

measures (including reasonably

available control technology); a

demonstration that the area will attain

the PM–10 national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) as expeditiously as

practicable; an accurate emissions

inventory; and the other moderate PM–

10 nonattainment planning

requirements discussed in the August

25, 1994 Federal Register document and

underlying documents. EPA is also

determining that major stationary

sources of PM–10 precursors do not

contribute significantly to PM–10 levels

in excess of the NAAQS in the

Pinehurst expansion area and is

therefore granting the exclusion from

precursor control requirements set out

at section 189(e) of the CAA. See

generally CAA section 172 (c), 188 &

189; 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) & 57

FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

However, as indicated in the August

25, 1994 Federal Register document, the

State has not satisfied the requirement

for contingency measures for either the

City of Pinehurst or the Pinehurst

expansion area. See CAA section 172

(c)(9) and 59 FR at 43750–43751.

Contingency measures for the City of

Pinehurst were due on November 15,

1993 and the State has until July 13,

1995 to correct this deficiency for the

City of Pinehurst or it will face federal

highway or offset sanctions. See 57 FR

13543 & 59 FR 43751. Contingency

measures for the Pinehurst expansion

area are due July 20, 1995. See 58 FR

67341. The State’s obligation to submit

a permit program for the construction

and operation of new and modified

stationary sources of PM–10 (NSR

program) in the Pinehurst expansion

area by July 13, 1995, has been satisfied

by the State’s May 17, 1994 submittal of

an NSR program covering all

nonattainment areas in the State. EPA is

currently in the process of reviewing the

State’s NSR program to determine if the

program meets the requirements of the

CAA. EPA intends to take action on

Idaho’s NSR program when EPA has

completed its review.

For additional discussion of the

control measures and other planning

requirements contained in the SIP and

EPA’s analysis, please see the State

submittal, EPA’s approval of the plan

for the City of Pinehurst (59 FR 43745)

and the docket supporting that

approval.

III. Administrative Review

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 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 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 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.

7410(a)(2).

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 July 25, 1995

unless, within 30 days of its

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice 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 July 25, 1995.

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

Nothing in this action 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 the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27893

1EPA notes that paragraph (1) of subsection

182(b) is entitled ‘‘PLAN PROVISIONS FOR

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS’’ and that

subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182(c)(2) is entitled

‘‘REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

DEMONSTRATION,’’ thereby making it clear that

both the 15 percent plan requirement of section

182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of

section 182(c)(2) are specific varieties of RFP

requirements.

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

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 July 25, 1995.

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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

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 N—Idaho

2. Section 52.670 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(28) introductory

text to read as follows:

§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(28) On April 14, 1992, the State of

Idaho submitted a revision to the SIP for

Pinehurst, ID, for the purpose of

bringing about the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standards

for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers. This

submittal includes an additional area in

Shoshone County adjacent to the City of

Pinehurst which EPA designated

nonattainment and moderate for PM–10

on January 20, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12929 Filed 5–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX No. PA63–1–7032a; FRL–5211–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Determination of Attainment of Ozone

Standard by the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley and Reading Ozone

Nonattainment Areas and

Determination Regarding Applicability

of Certain Reasonable Further

Progress and Attainment

Demonstration Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley and Reading

ozone nonattainment areas have

attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone.

This determination is based upon three

years of ambient air monitoring data for

the years 1992–94 that demonstrate that

the ozone NAAQS has been attained in

these areas. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also determining

that certain reasonable further progress

and attainment demonstration

requirements, along with certain other

related requirements, of Part D of Title

I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are not

applicable to these areas as long as these

areas continue to attain the ozone

NAAQS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become

effective July 10, 1995 unless notice is

received on or before June 26, 1995 that

adverse or critical comments will be

submitted. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air

Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Henry, (215) 597–0545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) contains various

air quality planning and state

implementation plan (SIP) submission

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas. EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret provisions regarding

reasonable further progress (RFP) and

attainment demonstrations, along with

certain other related provisions, so as

not to require SIP submissions if an

ozone nonattainment area subject to

those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

attainment of the NAAQS demonstrated

with three consecutive years of

complete, quality assured air quality

monitoring data). As described below,

EPA has previously interpreted the

general provisions of subpart 1 of part

D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) so as

not to require the submission of SIP

revisions concerning RFP, attainment

demonstrations, or contingency

measures. As explained in a

memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards to the

Regional Air Division Directors, entitled

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,

Attainment Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’, EPA

believes it is appropriate to interpret the

more specific RFP, attainment

demonstration and related provisions of

subpart 2 in the same manner.

First, with respect to RFP, section

171(1) states that, for purposes of part D

of Title I, RFP ‘‘means such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by this part or may reasonably be

required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the

applicable national ambient air quality

standard by the applicable date.’’ Thus,

whether dealing with the general RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirements of

subpart 2 for classified ozone

nonattainment areas (such as the 15

percent plan requirement of section

182(b)(1)), the stated purpose of RFP is

to ensure attainment by the applicable

attainment date.1 If an area has in fact

attained the standard, the stated

purpose of the RFP requirement will

have already been fulfilled and EPA

does not believe that the area need

submit revisions providing for the