Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27019

a nesting seabird colony: Provided,

however, that vessels may approach

within 50 yards of that part of South

Marble Island lying south of 58°38.6′N.

latitude (approximately the southern

one-half of South Marble Island) to view

seabirds.

(C) May 1 through August 31,

operating a vessel, or otherwise

approaching within 1⁄4 nautical mile of,

Spider Island or any of the four small

islets lying immediately west of Spider

Island.

(D) May 1 through August 31,

operating a cruise ship on Johns

Hopkins Inlet waters south of 58°54.2′N.

latitude (an imaginary line running

approximately due west from Jaw

Point).

(E) May 1 through June 30, operating

a vessel or a seaplane on Johns Hopkins

Inlet waters south of 58°54.2′N. latitude

(an imaginary line running

approximately due west from Jaw

Point).

(F) July 1 through August 31,

operating a vessel or a seaplane on

Johns Hopkins Inlet waters south of

58°54.2′N. latitude (an imaginary line

running approximately due west from

Jaw Point), within 1⁄4 nautical mile of a

seal hauled out on ice; except when safe

navigation requires, and then with due

care to maintain the 1⁄4 nautical mile

distance from concentrations of seals.

(G) Restrictions imposed in this

paragraph (b)(3)(vi) are minimum

distances. Park visitors are advised that

protection of park wildlife may require

that visitors maintain greater distances

from wildlife. See, 36 CFR 2.2 (Wildlife

protection).

(vii) Closed waters, motor vessels and

seaplanes. (A) May 1 through

September 15, operating a motor vessel

or a seaplane on the following water is

prohibited:

(1) Adams Inlet, east of 135°59.2′W.

longitude (an imaginary line running

approximately due north and south

through the charted (5) obstruction

located approximately 21⁄4 nautical

miles east of Pt. George).

(2) Rendu Inlet, north of the

wilderness boundary at the mouth of the

inlet.

(3) Hugh Miller complex, including

Scidmore Bay and Charpentier Inlet,

west of the wilderness boundary at the

mouth of the Hugh Miller Inlet.

(4) Waters within the Beardslee Island

group (except the Beardslee Entrance),

that is defined by an imaginary line

running due west from shore to the

easternmost point of Lester Island, then

along the south shore of Lester Island to

its western end, then to the

southernmost point of Young Island,

then north along the west shore and east

along the north shore of Young Island to

its northernmost point, then at a bearing

of 15° true to an imaginary point located

one nautical mile due east of the

easternmost point of Strawberry Island,

then at a bearing of 345° true to the

northernmost point of Flapjack Island,

then at a bearing of 81° true to the

northernmost point of the unnamed

island immediately to the east of

Flapjack Island, then southeasterly to

the northernmost point of the next

unnamed island, then southeasterly

along the (Beartrack Cove) shore of that

island to its easternmost point, then due

east to shore.

(B) June 1 through July 15, operating

a motor vessel or a seaplane on the

waters of Muir Inlet north of 59°02.7′N.

latitude (an imaginary line running

approximately due west from the point

of land on the east shore approximately

1 nautical mile north of the McBride

Glacier) is prohibited.

(C) July 16 through August 31,

operating a motor vessel or a seaplane

on the waters of Wachusett Inlet west of

136°12.0′W longitude (an imaginary line

running approximately due north from

the point of land on the south shore of

Wachusett Inlet approximately 21⁄4

nautical miles west of Rowlee Point) is

prohibited.

(viii) Noise restrictions. June 1

through August 31, except on vessels in

transit or as otherwise permitted by the

superintendent, the use of generators or

other non-propulsive motors (except a

windless) is prohibited from 10:00 p.m.

until 6:00 a.m. in Reid Inlet, Blue Mouse

Cove and North Sandy Cove.

(ix) Other restrictions.

Notwithstanding any other provision of

this part, due to the rapidly emerging

and changing ecosystems of, and for the

protection of wildlife in Glacier Bay

National Park and Preserve, including

but not limited to whales, seals, sea

lions, nesting birds and molting

waterfowl:

(A) Pursuant to §§ 1.5 and 1.6 of this

chapter, the superintendent may

establish, designate, implement and

enforce restrictions and public use

limits and terminate such restrictions

and public use limits.

(B) The public shall be notified of

restrictions or public use limits imposed

under this paragraph (b)(3)(ix) and the

termination or relaxation of such, in

accordance with § 1.7 of this chapter,

and by submission to the U.S. Coast

Guard for publication as a ‘‘Notice to

Mariners,’’ where appropriate.

(C) The superintendent shall make

rules for the safe and equitable use of

Bartlett Cove waters and for park docks.

The public shall be notified of these

rules by the posting of a sign or a copy

of the rules at the dock. Failure to obey

a sign or posted rule is prohibited.

(x) Closed waters and islands within

Glacier Bay as described in paragraphs

(b)(3) (iv) through (vii) of this section

are described as depicted on NOAA

Chart #17318 GLACIER BAY (4th Ed.,

Mar. 6/93) available to the public at

park offices at Bartlett Cove and Juneau,

Alaska.

(xi) Paragraphs (b)(3) (i) through (iii)

of this section do not apply to a vessel

being used in connection with federally

permitted whale research or monitoring;

other closures and restrictions in this

paragraph (b)(3) do not apply to

authorized persons conducting

emergency or law enforcement

operations, research or resource

management, park administration/

supply, or other necessary patrols.

(4) Marine vessel visible emission

standards. Visible emissions from a

marine vessel, excluding condensed

water vapor, may not result in a

reduction of visibility through the

exhaust effluent of greater than 20

percent for a period or periods

aggregating more than:

(i) Three minutes in any one hour

while underway, at berth, or at anchor;

or

(ii) Six minutes in any one hour

during initial startup of diesel-driven

vessels; or

(iii) 12 minutes in one hour while

anchoring, berthing, getting underway

or maneuvering in Bartlett Cove.

* * * * *

Dated: April 22, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 96–13210 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ID–1–1–5528a; FRL–5449–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

State of Idaho 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
27020 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) in

the Northern Ada County PM10

nonattainment area.

DATES: This action is effective on July

29, 1996 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by July 1, 1996.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request

and other information supporting this

action are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations: EPA, Region 10,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101, and State of Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton,

Boise, ID 83720.

Written comments should be

addressed to: Montel Livingston, EPA,

Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 1200

Sixth Avenue, OAQ–107, Seattle,

Washington, 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Cole, EPA, Region 10, Idaho

Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard,

Boise, Idaho 83706, (208) 334–9555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On September 22, 1994, EPA issued a

proposed rulemaking action on the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Northern Ada County PM10

nonattainment area. See 59 FR 48582,

Sept. 22, 1994. The plan was submitted

for the purpose of satisfying the

moderate area planning requirements

for PM10 nonattainment areas, as set

forth in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). In that

proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to

grant full approval of the emissions

inventory and PM10 precursor exclusion

elements, limited approval of the

control measures submitted by the State

for the limited purpose of making them

Federally enforceable, and disapproval

of the control measures, attainment

demonstration and quantitative

milestones, and reasonable further

progress elements of the SIP.

Disapproval of these elements was

based on the State’s failure to adopt into

the SIP and submit to EPA the wood

smoke control ordinances for the cities

of Garden City, Meridian, and Eagle,

and for unincorporated Ada County,

which the State had relied on to

implement the residential wood burning

program identified in the SIP. In

addition, the State had failed to

adequately address in the SIP the

enforceability of its control measures.

EPA received no comments on its

proposal.

On December 30, 1994, the State of

Idaho, Department of Health and

Welfare, Division of Environmental

Quality (IDEQ or State) submitted to

EPA additional information which

included the wood smoke control

ordinances for these areas; an

explanation of the enforcement

procedures, responsibilities, and

sources of funding for each of the

adopted ordinances; and the State’s

assurance of responsibility for adequate

implementation of the local control

measures. As described in more detail

below, EPA believes the Northern Ada

County PM10 SIP is now fully

approvable and therefore fully approves

the State’s plan.

II. Analysis of State Submission

A detailed analysis of the SIP is

contained in the September 22, 1994,

Federal Register document proposing

action on the Northern Ada County

PM10 SIP. (59 FR 48582) That analysis

evaluated each of the SIP elements, and

concluded that certain elements were

approvable and that certain elements

had deficiencies requiring resolution. A

summary of the analysis, and additional

analysis of information contained in the

December 30, 1994, submittal follows.

1. Procedural Background

IDEQ conducted public hearings and

adopted the SIP consistent with Section

110 of Clean Air Act. The initial public

hearing was held on October 11, 1990,

and a second public hearing was held

on November 14, 1991, on a plan

modification. The additional

information submitted on December 30,

1994, included four implementing

ordinances that had each been adopted

by the responsible agency after having

gone through the public hearing process

required by State and local law. EPA has

determined that notice and public

hearing, meeting the requirements of 40

CFR 51.102, is not required for the

December 30, 1994, submittal because

the ordinances and other information

submitted by the State do not differ

materially from the control measures

outlined in the SIP that went through

notice and public hearing.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

The September 22, 1994 Federal

Register document discussed the

emissions inventory contained in the

November 15, 1991, SIP and concluded

it was consistent with the requirements

of Sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of

the Act. The additional information

submitted on December 30, 1994, did

not change the emissions inventory.

Thus, for the reasons set forth in the

September 22, 1994 Federal Register

document, EPA is fully approving the

emission inventory.

3. Control Measures

In the September 22, 1994 Federal

Register document, EPA determined

that the November 14, 1991, SIP did not

provide for the timely implementation

of reasonably available control measures

(RACM), including reasonably available

control technology (RACT). To achieve

required emission reductions, the SIP

relied upon a residential wood burning

program, which consisted of four

elements: an episodic wood burning

curtailment program, a wood smoke

public education/awareness program, a

wood stove certification program, and a

wood stove change-out program. The

principal element of the residential

wood burning program was the episodic

wood burning curtailment program. The

SIP stated that this program would be

implemented at the local level through

the adoption of local ordinances by Ada

County, and by the cities of Boise,

Garden City, Eagle, and Meridian.

However, as noted in the September 22,

1994, Federal Register document, the

State had not adopted and submitted all

of these ordinances as part of the SIP

submittal and the SIP therefore did not

satisfy the RACM/RACT requirement.

The additional information submitted

to EPA on December 30, 1994, included

the required ordinances for Ada County,

and for the cities of Garden City, Eagle,

and Meridian. Each ordinance describes

the procedures for instituting a wood

stove curtailment program, including

the monitored level at which an ‘‘alert’’

is called (100 μg/m 3), and provisions for

exemptions from the program. The

additional information also included a

description of the procedures by which

each local agency in the nonattainment

area which has passed a wood smoke

control ordinance will issue wood stove

permits, determine exemptions from the

curtailment program, enforce the

program, and fund implementation.

EPA believes that the State’s

December 30, 1994, submittal addresses

the deficiencies identified in the

September 22, 1994, Federal Register

document, with one exception which

does not bar full approval of the State’s

control measures as meeting the RACM/

RACT requirement. The State’s initial

SIP submittal stated that all cities in the

nonattainment area and the

unincorporated areas of Ada County had

ordinances prohibiting the sale and

installation of uncertified wood stoves.

The initial SIP submittal, however, only

included the ordinance for the City of

Boise, and EPA proposed limited

approval of that control measure. As

stated above, the additional information
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27021

1As discussed in Section II.6 below, the State has

recently identified in the nonattainment area two

major sources of NOX, which is a precursor to

particulate formation under certain meteorological

conditions. Whether RACM requires the

implementation of additional controls on these

major sources of NOX is discussed in Section II.6

below.

submitted on December 30, 1994,

included wood smoke control

ordinances for Garden City, Eagle,

Meridian, and unincorporated Ada

County. Only the Garden City and Ada

County ordinances, however, have

prohibitions on the sale and installation

of non-certified wood stoves. EPA does

not believe that the failure of the Cities

of Meridian and Eagle to prohibit the

sale and installation of uncertified wood

stoves poses a bar to full approval of the

control measures identified in the SIP as

meeting the RACM/RACT requirement.

As stated in the September 22, 1994,

Federal Register document, the State

did not take any emission reduction

credit for the wood stove certification

program. See 59 FR 48585. RACM/

RACT does not require the

implementation of all available control

measures where an area demonstrates

timely attainment of the NAAQS and

implementation of additional control

measures would not expedite

attainment. See 57 FR 13498, 13540–

13544 (April 10, 1992).

The September 22, 1994 document

discussed whether, assuming the

implementation of control measures on

wood smoke as identified in the SIP,

RACM/RACT required the imposition of

controls on emissions of other sources

of PM10 in the nonattainment area, such

as road dust, prescribed silvicultural

and agricultural burning, and stationary

sources. See 59 FR 48585. EPA

preliminarily concluded that additional

controls on these sources would not be

necessary, assuming implementation of

the proposed wood smoke controls,

either because emissions from such

sources were insignificant or because

additional controls on such sources

were not necessary for and would not

expedite attainment. Now that the State

has fully implemented the wood smoke

controls discussed in the SIP and

demonstrated that such controls result

in timely attainment of the PM10

standard, EPA concludes that RACM/

RACT does not require additional

controls on sources other than wood

smoke.1 Accordingly, for the reasons set

forth in the September 22, 1994, Federal

Register document and the reasons set

forth herein, EPA is approving the

State’s control measures as meeting the

RACM/RACT requirement.

4. Attainment Demonstration

As discussed in the September 22,

1994, Federal Register document, IDEQ

conducted modeling which

demonstrated the nonattainment area

will be in attainment of the 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS during the period of 1993

through 2000. However, because IDEQ

had not demonstrated to EPA that it had

adopted the wood smoke control

measures necessary to achieve the

emission reductions identified in the

SIP, EPA proposed to disapprove the

attainment demonstration. See 59 FR

48586. Now that IDEQ has demonstrated

that the necessary control measures

have been adopted and implemented

and EPA is approving those measures as

meeting the RACM/RACT requirement,

EPA is giving full approval to the State’s

attainment demonstration.

A review of monitored data in the

Northern Ada County NAA indicates

that no exceedences of the standard

have occurred since January 7, 1991.

Over time, the expected exceedence rate

for the 24-hour standard has been

steadily decreasing, from a high of 4.5

during the three-year period 1986–1988

to 0.0 for the period 1992–1994. Based

on the monitored data, it appears the

nonattainment area has attained the 24-

hour PM10 standard.

5. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress

The State’s initial SIP submittal also

met the requirements for quantitative

milestones and Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP). In the September 22,

1994, Federal Register document,

however, EPA proposed disapproving

these requirements because attainment

and maintenance of the standard was

predicated on control measures that had

not been incorporated into the SIP. See

59 FR 48586–48587. Now that this

deficiency has been corrected by the

December 31, 1994, submittal, EPA is

fully approving State’s plan as meeting

the quantitative milestones and RFP

requirements.

6. PM10 Precursors

The September 22, 1994, Federal

Register document proposed to grant

the exclusion from controls authorized

under Section 189(e) of the Act for

major stationary sources of PM10

precursors in the nonattainment area.

See 59 FR 48587. EPA proposed a

finding that major stationary sources of

PM10 precursors did not contribute

significantly to PM10 levels in excess of

the NAAQS in the nonattainment area.

IDEQ has subsequently submitted

information identifying in the

nonattainment area two major stationary

sources of NOx, a PM10 precursor under

certain meteorological conditions.

Northwest Pipeline has a potential to

emit 314 tons of NOx per year and St.

Alphonsus Hospital has the potential to

emit 116 tons of NOx per year. The SIP

provides an adequate demonstration

that implementation of RACT will be

sufficient to attain the PM10 by the

applicable attainment date. In addition,

EPA reviewed the ambient air quality

data from 1992, 1993, and 1994 and

determined that the area attained the

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. Thus,

although there are two major stationary

sources of PM10 precursors in the

nonattainment area, EPA believes these

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM10 levels in excess of the NAAQS

in the nonattainment area. Therefore,

Section 189(e) of the Clean Air Act does

not require the imposition of control

requirements on major stationary

sources of PM10 precursors in the

nonattainment area.

7. Enforceability of Control Measures

In the September 22, 1994, Federal

Register document, EPA reserved

judgment on the enforceability of the

identified control measures because

several of the control measures relied on

by the State in its SIP submittal had not

been submitted to EPA. See 59 FR

48587. As discussed in Section II.3

above, IDEQ has now submitted those

control measures to EPA, and EPA has

determined the control measures meet

the RACM/RACT requirement. The

December 31, 1994, submittal includes

a description of each implementing

ordinance, the agency responsible for

enforcement, enforcement procedures

and penalties, and the steps the State of

Idaho would take should an agency fail

to implement or enforce its respective

ordinance, as required by Section

110(a)(2)(E) of the Clean Air Act.

Specifically, IDEQ has committed to

impose Tier II operating permits on all

owners and operators of wood stoves

within the nonattainment area should a

local agency fail to implement its

ordinance, and IDEQ has demonstrated

its authority to do so. In summary, EPA

believes that IDEQ has satisfied the

enforceability requirements of Title I of

the Act, including the requirements of

Section 110(a)(2)(E), and is therefore

fully approving the State’s SIP as

meeting these requirement.

8. Contingency Measures

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires

that contingency measures be included

in each moderate area PM10

nonattainment plan. These measures

must take effect without further action

by the State or EPA upon a
27022 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

determination that the area has failed to

make Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the

applicable statutory deadline, and

should result in emission reductions

approximately equal to the emissions

reductions necessary to demonstrate

RFP. See generally 57 FR 13510–13512

and 13543–13544. For a moderate PM10

nonattainment area, such as Northern

Ada County, with a three to four year

period between SIP development and

the attainment date, this would mean

that contingency measures should result

in emission reductions equal to at least

25 percent of the emission reductions in

the total control strategy. 57 FR 13544.

A State may rely on ‘‘over control’’ as

a contingency measure, that is, rely on

control measures that are part of the

core control strategy in the SIP, if such

control measures result in emission

reductions greater than those required to

achieve the 24-hour NAAQS standard of

150 μg/m3.

On July 13, 1995, IDEQ submitted

contingency measures to EPA for

approval which were a combination of

over control from the wood smoke

control measures and new controls on

fugitive road dust. Modeling of the core

control measures in the SIP for the

Northern Ada County nonattainment

area indicates a 17 μg/m3 reduction in

the 24-hour standard (from 164 μg/m3 to

147 μg/m3). This means that the core

control measures in the SIP result in

over control of 18 percent (ratio of the

difference between 147 μg/m3 and 150

μg/m3 to 17 μg/m3). To obtain the

additional 7 percent of emission

reductions needed for 25 percent

reduction of emissions through

contingency measures, the State has

adopted a program for the reduction of

fugitive road dust. The State’s submittal

includes a signed agreement between

the Idaho Transportation Department,

Ada County Highway District, and

IDEQ, which details a road sweeping

program designed to reduce particulate

emissions by prioritizing road sanding

such that streets with the highest

potential to emit PM10, in the form of reentrained dust, are swept first, and more

frequently. IDEQ retains the authority to

review and approve any changes to the

plan. The State anticipates that this road

dust program will result in an

additional 9 percent reduction in PM10

emissions. Together with the 18 percent

in emission reductions achieved

through over control, the State’s

contingency measures are predicted to

result in more than 25 percent of the

total reductions necessary for

attainment. EPA therefore approves the

contingency measures submitted by the

State on July 13, 1995.

9. New Source Review

States with initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified stationary sources of PM10 by

June 30, 1992. See Section 189(a) of the

Clean Air Act. This permit program

element, known as the New Source

Review (NSR) program, was submitted

by the State of Idaho on May 17, 1994.

EPA notified the State on June 10, 1994,

that its NSR program submittal was

complete. EPA is currently reviewing

Idaho’s NSR program submittal to

determine if the program meets the

requirements of the Act. EPA intends to

take action on Idaho’s NSR program in

another rulemaking after EPA has

completed its review.

III. This Action

EPA is granting full approval to the

November 14, 1991, Northern Ada

County PM10 SIP, as supplemented by

additional information which IDEQ has

submitted since that time. IDEQ has

demonstrated that the SIP meets the

applicable requirements of the Act.

IV. 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

process 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 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).

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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 affected 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 State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector.

This Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or

local law, and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

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 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,

EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

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, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective July 29, 1996
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 27023

unless, by July 1, 1996 adverse or

critical comments are received.

If 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. 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 29, 1996.

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 29, 1996.

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, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the State of Idaho

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 20, 1996.

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

adding paragraph (c)(31) to read as

follows:

§ 52.670 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(31) On November 14, 1991, and on

December 30, 1994, the Idaho

Department of Health and Welfare

(IDHW) submitted revisions to the Idaho

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Northern Ada County/Boise Particulate

(PM10) Air Quality Improvement Plan.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) November 14, 1991, letter from

the IDHW Administrator to the EPA

Region 10 Regional Administrator

submitting a revision to the Idaho SIP

for the Northern Ada County/Boise

Particulate Air Quality Improvement

Plan; The Northern Ada County Boise

Particulate (PM10) Air Quality

Improvement Plan adopted on

November 14, 1991.

(B) December 30, 1994, letter from the

IDHW Administrator to the EPA Region

10 Regional Administrator including a

revision to the Idaho SIP for the

Northern Ada County/Boise PM10 Air

Quality Improvement Plan; Appendix

C–1, Supplemental Control Strategy

Documentation, Northern Ada County/

Boise PM10 Air Quality Improvement

Plan, adopted December 30, 1994, with

the following attachments: Garden City

Ordinances #514 (May 14, 1987), #533

(January 10, 1989) and #624 (September

13, 1994); Meridian Ordinance #667

(August 16, 1994); Eagle Ordinance #245

(April 26, 1994); Ada County Ordinance

#254 (November 3, 1992); and Table

Ordinance-1 (December 30, 1994).

[FR Doc. 96–12888 Filed 5–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–84; Notice 02]

RIN 2127–AF70

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Head Restraints

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the

test procedures in Standard No. 202,

‘‘Head Restraints,’’ by replacing the

phrase ‘‘rearmost portion of the head

form’’ with a reference to the portion of

the head form in contact with the head

restraint. The proposal on which this

rule is based contained two other

proposed amendments to the standard;

this document terminates rulemaking on

those proposals.

DATES: Effective Date: The amendments

made in this rule are effective July 15,

1996.

PETITION DATES: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Clarke Harper,

Frontal Crash Protection Division,

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards,

NPS–12, telephone (202) 366–4916, fax

(202) 366–4329, electronic mail

‘‘charper@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–2992, facsimile (202) 366–

3820, electronic mail

‘‘swood@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to the March 4, 1994 directive,

‘‘Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,’’

from the President to the heads of

departments and agencies, NHTSA has

undertaken a review of all its

regulations and directives. During the

course of this review, the agency

identified several requirements and

regulations that are potential candidates

for amendment or rescission. Some of

these provisions were found in Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202,

‘‘Head Restraints.’’

On October 24, 1995, NHTSA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM), proposing to delete

one of two alternative performance

requirements for head restraints. The

NPRM also proposed to clarify the test

procedures by replacing the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’

with a reference to the portion of the

head form in contact with the head

restraint. Last, the NPRM proposed to

specify that head restraints on benchtype seats are loaded simultaneously

during compliance testing.

The agency received eight comments

in response to this NPRM. As explained

below, after reviewing these comments

the agency has decided to amend

Standard No. 202 to replace the phrase

‘‘rearmost portion of the head form’’

with a reference to the portion of the

head form in contact with the head

restraint. However, the agency is

terminating rulemaking on the other

proposed amendments.