Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24239

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3015(d), (f), (g))

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–11970 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DE26–1–6940; FRL–5503–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Delaware: Amendment of Final Rule

Pertaining to Regulation 24—Control

of Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions, Section 47—Offset

Lithographic Printing; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Correction to Amendment of

direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to an amendment of a direct

final rule, which was published on

Tuesday, March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13101)

(96–7063). This amendment pertains to

Delaware Regulation 24, Control of

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions,

section 47, Offset Lithographic Printing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Quinto, (215) 597–3164.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 26, 1996, EPA published

a Direct Final Rule approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by Delaware (61 FR 2419)

pertaining to Delaware Regulation 24,

Control of Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions, sections 10, 11, 12, 44, 45,

47, 48, and 49, and Appendices I, K, L,

and M, effective November 29, 1994.

These sections of Regulation 24

establish additional emission standards

that represent the application of

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) to categories of stationary

sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs). Because EPA received adverse

comments on section 47, Offset

Lithographic Printing, EPA published

an amendment of the direct final rule on

March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13101),

withdrawing section 47 only.

Need for Correction

As published, the amendment of the

direct final rule contains errors which

may prove to be misleading and are in

need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, at 61 FR 13101, Mar. 26,

1996 the publication of the amendment,

is corrected to read as follows: The

heading ‘‘§ 54.420 [Amended]’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘§ 52.420 [Amended]’’.

In amendatory instruction 2 the

reference to ‘‘§ 54.420(c)(54)(i)(B)’’ is

corrected to read ‘‘§ 52.420(c)(54)(i)(B)’’.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–11855 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CT23–1–7084; FRL–5443–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is responding to an

adverse comment concerning EPA’s

proposal to redesignate Hartford,

Connecticut as attainment for carbon

monoxide. EPA is not changing its

action to redesignate the area as

attainment that took effect on January 2,

1996. EPA is also correcting an incorrect

entry in the attainment status tables

associated with this action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wing H. Chau, Air Quality Planning

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts

02203, (617) 565–3570.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 31, 1995, EPA published a

direct final rule (60 FR 55316) which

announced that this rule would take

effect in 60 days, or January 2, 1996,

unless EPA received adverse comment

on the rule within 30 days in response

to a notice of proposed rulemaking

published on the same day (60 FR

55354). EPA also committed to

withdraw the direct final rule in the

event it received adverse comment, and

to respond to any adverse comments in

a subsequent final rulemaking action.

EPA did receive a timely adverse

comment on this rule. EPA failed,

however, to withdraw the final rule

within the 60 days given in the direct

final rule, and the rule took effect on

January 2, 1996.

In this notice, EPA is responding to

the comment it received, but for the

reasons stated below, EPA is not

changing the final rule in response to

that comment. Had EPA withdrawn the

direct final rule prior to its going into

effect, EPA would have taken final

action based on the proposal to

promulgate a rule identical to the direct

final rule that went into effect. Rather

than now take the action of withdrawing

the direct final rule only to

repromulgate simultaneously an

identical rule, however, EPA in this

action is deciding to maintain the rule

unchanged. EPA believes that

withdrawal and repromulgation are

unnecessary since the results would be

identical to that obtained simply by

leaving the rule unchanged and

responding to the comments in this

notice. This notice provides interested

parties an opportunity to review how

EPA addressed the comment and to

petition for judicial review of EPA’s

action in this final rulemaking within 60

days of publication of this notice, as

provided in section 307(b)(1) of the Act.

Also, in the October 31, 1995 direct

final rulemaking, the revised Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) § 81.307

designation table for carbon monoxide

identified a number of towns in the

Litchfield, Middlesex, and Tolland

Counties as ‘‘Nonattainment * * *

Moderate ≤12.7 ppm’’. The table should

have shown these areas as attainment

areas for CO. The revised § 81.307

designation table associated with this

final rulemaking reflects the appropriate

attainment status of the towns

mentioned above. The USEPA regrets

any inconvenience these errors may

have caused.

I. Summary of Action and Responses to

Comments

EPA did receive one comment from

the New York Mercantile Exchange

(NYMEX), dated November 29, 1995.

NYMEX is the world’s largest exchange

of energy futures, and NYMEX is

concerned that the redesignation of the

Hartford area might affect gasoline

formulation requirements and disrupt

futures contracts entered into based on

gasoline formulation requirements in

effect prior to the redesignation. The

comment questioned whether EPA had

offered interested persons any

meaningful opportunity to comment on

this proposal, and asserted that EPA

should have provided ‘‘far more than

the limited period of notice afforded in

these redesignation approvals’’ to avoid

disruption in the petroleum industry

and energy futures markets when

changing environmental requirements.

As a legal matter, this SIP action is

subject to the procedures of the

Administrative Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’)