29970 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

prepared. The EPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

This final rule only approves the

incorporation of existing state rules into

the SIP and imposes no additional

requirements. This rule is estimated to

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments or the private

sector of less than $100 million in any

one year. EPA, therefore, has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement

or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative.

Furthermore, because small

governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, the EPA

is not required to develop a plan with

regard to small governments.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. section 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.

sections 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 Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements a State has

already imposed. 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 the State

action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA

to base its actions concerning SIPs on

such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

EPA., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976);

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

F. 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 August 12, 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)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

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.

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(106) On September 19, 1995, and

November 8, 1995, Indiana submitted

automobile and mobile equipment

refinishing rules for Clark, Floyd, Lake,

and Porter Counties as a revision to the

State Implementation Plan. This rule

requires suppliers and refinishers to

meet volatile organic compound content

limits or equivalent control measures for

coatings used in automobile and mobile

equipment refinishing operations in the

four counties, as well as establishing

certain coating applicator and

equipment cleaning requirements.

(i) Incorporation by reference. 326

Indiana Administrative Code 8–10:

Automobile refinishing, Section 1:

Applicability, Section 2: Definitions,

Section 3: Requirements, Section 4:

Means to limit volatile organic

compound emissions, Section 5: Work

practice standards, Section 6:

Compliance procedures, Section 7: Test

procedures, Section 8: Control system

operation, maintenance, and

monitoring, and Section 9: Record

keeping and reporting. Adopted by the

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board

June 7, 1995. Filed with the Secretary of

State October 3, 1995. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 19, Number 2,

November 1, 1995. Effective November

2, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14965 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[NM 28–1–7312; FRL–5514–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; State of New Mexico;

Approval of the Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program, Emissions

Inventory, and Maintenance Plan;

Redesignation to Attainment;

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New

Mexico; Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is redesignating to

attainment the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area. This action is in

response to a request from the Governor

of New Mexico on behalf of the

Albuquerque and Bernalillo County

carbon monoxide nonattainment area.

The Governor’s request included a

revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for the administration of a

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program, a 1993 emissions inventory

for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, and

an attainment maintenance plan. On

February 16, 1996, the EPA proposed

approval of the Albuquerque/ Bernalillo

County I/M program, 1993 periodic

emissions inventory, the maintenance

plan, and the request for redesignation,

because all met the requirements set

forth in the Clean Air Act (Act). This

final action promulgates the rule,

redesignating the area to attainment,

and incorporating the request into the

SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the addresses listed

below. The interested persons wanting

to examine these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least twenty-four

hours before the visiting day.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket Room

M1500), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, D. C. 20460

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29971

1The Clean Air Act as amended (1990

Amendments) made significant changes to the air

quality planning requirements for areas that do not

meet (or that significantly contribute to ambient air

quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the CO

NAAQS (see Pub. L. No. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399).

References herein are to the CAAA, 42 U.S.C.

sections 7401 et seq.

2The attainment contingency measure approved

on May 5, 1995 at 59 FR 23167 would become one

of two maintenance contingency measures through

final action on this petition.

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733

Albuquerque Environmental Health

Department, Air Pollution Control

Division, One Civic Plaza Room 3023,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Matthew Witosky, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New

Mexico, was designated nonattainment

for CO and classified as moderate with

a design value below 12.7 parts per

million (ppm) (specifically 11.1 ppm),

under sections 107(d)(4)(A) and 186(a)

of the Act, upon enactment of the Clean

Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990

(the Act).1 Please reference 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 13498

and 13529 (April 16, 1992). On

November 5, 1992, the Governor of New

Mexico submitted to the EPA a SIP

revision for CO concerning

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County that was

intended to satisfy the Act’s

requirements due on November 15,

1992. The Act outlines certain required

items to be included in CO SIPs. The

required items for the Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County CO SIP, due

November 15, 1992, included: (1) a

comprehensive, accurate, and current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of CO in the nonattainment area

(sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the

Act); (2) no later than September 30,

1995, and no later than the end of each

three year period thereafter, until the

area is redesignated to attainment, a

revised inventory meeting the

requirements of sections 187(a)(1) and

187(a)(5) of the Act; (3) a permit

program to be submitted by November

15, 1993, which meets the requirements

of section 173 for the construction and

operation of new and modified major

stationary sources of CO (section

172(c)(5)); (4) contingency measures due

November 15, 1993, that are to be

implemented if the EPA determines that

the area has failed to attain the primary

standards by the applicable date

(section 172(c)(9)); (5) a commitment to

upgrade and submit a SIP revision for

the I/M program by November 15, 1993,

(section 187(a)(4)); and (6) an

oxygenated fuels program (section

211(m)).

Several of these items required to be

in the City/County CO SIP were

approved at different times prior to this

action. The 1990 base year inventory,

the oxygenated fuels program, and the

winter wood burning program were

approved on November 29, 1993, at 58

FR 62535. The nonattainment New

Source Review program was approved

on December 21, 1994, at 58 FR 67326.

Required contingency measures were

approved on May 5, 1995, at 59 FR

23167. Transportation conformity rules

were approved on November 8, 1995, at

60 FR 56238. This action provides final

approval for the 1993 emissions

inventory, the vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, the attainment

maintenance plan, and the maintenance

contingency provisions.2 Hence, the

City/County has a completely approved

SIP for the purposes of redesignation.

The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County

Air Quality Control Board has ambient

monitoring data showing attainment of

the CO National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) during the period

from 1992 through all of 1995.

Therefore, in an effort to comply with

the Act and to ensure continued

attainment of the CO NAAQS, on April

14, 1995, the Governor of New Mexico

submitted a CO redesignation request

and a maintenance plan for the

Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area.

The redesignation request and

maintenance plan were both approved

by the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County

Air Quality Control Board (hereafter

referred to as City/County) after a public

hearing held on April 13, 1995.

II. Evaluation of Petition

The Act revised section 107(d)(3)(E)

to provide specific requirements that an

area must meet in order to be

redesignated from nonattainment to

attainment. The EPA performed a

detailed analysis of the City/County’s

petition and proposed approval on

February 16, 1996 (see 61 FR 6179). The

EPA concluded that the City/County

had met all applicable requirements. No

comments received during the public

comment period have given the EPA

cause to rescind the proposed approval.

Please see the proposed rule and

Technical Support Document (TSD) for

the complete analysis.

III. Response to Comments

The EPA received one letter

containing adverse comments to the

proposed action.

Comment: The commenter questioned

whether the City of Albuquerque and

Bernalillo County would be in

attainment if a previously operational

special-purpose monitor were still in

place. The commenter contended that

the permanent monitoring network in

place does not accurately reflect air

quality in the ‘‘Uptown’’ area of the

City.

Response: The EPA disagrees with

this comment in two respects. The City/

County operates an extensive CO

monitoring network that sufficiently

covers the nonattainment area,

operating more monitors than required

of cities of equal or greater population

and area. All current monitoring sites

meet the siting criteria the EPA uses to

evaluate the location of individual

monitors. The network as a whole also

conforms to the current EPA policy and

guidance that dictate coverage and

resolution of monitoring data within a

given domain to demonstrate

attainment.

The EPA reviewed the comment with

the City/County to determine if air

quality analysis had been conducted in

the ‘‘Uptown’’ area of the City. The City/

County provided documentation and

analysis of a monitoring exercise carried

out in the high CO season of 1995. The

City/County deployed two special

purpose monitors for 11 days to discern

if a CO ‘‘hot spot’’ exists at the

intersection nearest the previous site of

the special purpose monitor. Direct

monitoring data showed little

possibility that ambient CO

concentrations currently present a

problem for human health or the

environment. The monitoring data

generated by the special purpose

monitor indicate CO levels in

compliance with the national standards.

It should be pointed out that the special

purpose monitors were placed to

measure the highest possible

concentrations at the locations in

question, and CO levels still remained

below national standards. Statistical

tests on the correlation between CO

values at the permanent and special

purpose monitors indicate that the

monitoring data were representative of

air quality, reasonable and accurate.

Hence, the City/County has adequately

ascertained that the existing monitoring

network accurately reflects air quality in

the ‘‘Uptown’’ area. To review the

information provided by City/County,

see the addendum to the Technical
29972 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Support Document (TSD) in the docket

file.

Comment: The commenter asserted

that efforts of the City of Albuquerque

and Bernalillo County to reduce vehiclemiles travelled (VMT) in the

nonattainment area are inadequate for

the City/County to achieve attainment.

Response: The EPA disagrees that the

City/County should be required to

implement additional reductions in

VMT to attain the standard. The main

components of the CO control program

are the vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, the oxygenated

fuels program, the episode contingency

plan, and the new source review permit

program. The City/County has also

adopted general and transportation

conformity rules that are also currently

being applied. Although the commenter

specifically mentions high occupancy

vehicle (HOV) lanes, the use of mass

transit, public education campaigns,

and pedestrian and bike trails, these

programs do not constitute the mainstay

of the CO control program, upon which

the City/County achieved attainment

and requested redesignation. The main

parts of the control program, in

conjunction with other federal

programs, have enabled the area to

achieve four years of continuous

attainment with the CO standard.

Should the main parts of the program

not achieve maintenence of the

standard, contingency measures will be

applied without further action by the

City/County to bring the area back into

attainment. See the proposed rule for

discussion of the applicable

contingency measures.

Comment: The commenter asserted

that implementation of the Intermodal

Multimodal Transporation Plan and

Transportation Improvement Program is

deficient.

Response: The implementation of the

Intermodal Multimodal Transporation

Plan and Transportation Improvement

Plans (TIP) are not under the purview of

the EPA. The EPA takes this

opportunity to point out that the U.S.

Department of Transportation renders

the determination that the TIP does or

does not conform to the SIP, for

transportation planning purposes.

IV. Final Action

The EPA is issuing final approval of

the request of the State of New Mexico

and Albuquerque/Bernalillo County to

redesignate the Albuquerque CO

nonattainment area to attainment status.

The EPA is also issuing final approval

of the vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, the 1993 periodic

emissions inventory, and the attainment

maintenance plan. The EPA received

and addressed comments on the

proposed approval of all these elements

of the complete CO SIP.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action under the procedures

published in the FR 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 Executive

Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Miscellaneous

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.

The 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, 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 Act

forbids the 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 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

§ 7410(a)(2)).

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 August 12, 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).]

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

undertake various actions in association

with proposed or final rules that include

a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to the private sector, or to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under section 110

of the Act. These rules may bind State,

local and tribal governments to perform

certain actions and also require the

private sector to perform certain duties.

To the extent that the rules being

approved by this action will impose no

new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these regulations

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. The EPA has

also determined that this 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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

and Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 15, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administator.

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 are 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 GG—New Mexico

2. Section 52.1620 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(63) to read as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 115 / Thursday, June 13, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29973

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(63) A revision to the New Mexico SIP

approving a request for redesignation to

attainment, a vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, and the required

maintenance plan for the Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County CO nonattainment

area, submitted by the Governor on May

11, 1995. The 1993 emissions inventory

and projections were included in the

maintenance plan.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) A letter from the Governor of New

Mexico to EPA dated April 14, 1995, in

which the Governor requested

redesignation to attainment based on the

adopted Carbon Monoxide

Redesignation Request and Maintenance

Plan for Albuquerque/Bernalillo County

New Mexico.

(B) Albuquerque/Bernalillo County

Air Quality Control Board Regulation

No. 28, Motor Vehicle Inspection, as

amended April 12, 1995 and effective

on July 1, 1995.

(ii) Additional material. Carbon

Monoxide Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County New Mexico,

approved and adopted by the Air

Quality Control Board on April 13,

1995.

3. Section 52.1627 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 52.1627 Control strategy and

regulations: Carbon monoxide.

Part D Approval. The Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County carbon monoxide

maintenance plan as adopted on April

13, 1995, meets the requirements of

Section 172 of the Clean Air Act, and is

therefore approved.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

2. In § 81.332 the table for ‘‘New

Mexico-Carbon Monoxide’’ is amended

by revising the entry for the

Albuquerque Area Bernalillo County to

read as follows:

§ 81.332 New Mexico.

* * * * *

NEW MEXICO-CARBON MONOXIDE

Designation Classification

Date1 Type Date1 Type

Albuquerque Area Bernalillo County ..................................................... July 15, 1996 ... Attainment. ....... ..........................

1 This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14968 Filed 6–12–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1150

[Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-Nos. 2 and 3)]

Class Exemption for the Construction

of Connecting Track and Rail

Construction Under 49 U.S.C. 10901

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (the Board) grants final approval

to a class exemption for the construction

and operation of connecting railroad

track in Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No. 2)

and terminates the Ex Parte No. 392

(Sub-No. 3) proceeding that proposed to

adopt a different class exemption for all

rail construction projects not covered by

the connecting track exemption. Final

regulations establishing the exemption

for connecting track are set forth below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Dettmar, (202) 927–5660. [TDD

for the hearing impaired: (202) 927–

5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

exemption for the construction of

connecting track was initially proposed

in Ex Parte No. 392 (Sub-No. 2). By

decision served on September 15, 1992,

and notice of proposed rulemaking

published in the Federal Register on

September 16, 1992 (57 FR 42733), our

predecessor agency, the Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC), sought

public comments on proposed changes

to 49 CFR Part 1150 that would

establish a class exemption for all rail

construction, or, alternatively, for

construction of connecting railroad

tracks. The Board is adopting (with

minor changes) the proposed class

exemption for the construction and

operation of connecting tracks. We

believe the changes will facilitate

expanded rail service and reduce

regulatory delay and also satisfy the

requirements of the environmental laws,

because the exemption has been

structured so as to assure that there will

be a full and timely environmental

review in each case. We do not believe

a class exemption for other rail

constructions is warranted. Therefore,

we will terminate the Ex Parte No. 392

(Sub-No. 3) proceeding and simply

continue our practice of expeditiously

handling individual construction

exemption requests as an alternative to

the class exemption the ICC had

proposed. Additional information is

contained in the Board’s decision served

on June 13, 1996. To purchase a copy

of the decision, write to, call, or pick up

in person from: DC News & Data, Inc.,

1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room

2229, Washington, D.C. 20423.

(Assistance for the hearing impaired is

available through TDD service (202)

927–5721.)

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1150

Administrative practice and

procedure, Railroads.

Decided: May 29, 1996.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Simmons, and Commissioner

Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, Title 49, Chapter X, part 1150

is amended as set forth below:

PART 1150—CERTIFICATE TO

CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE, OR OPERATE

RAILROAD LINES

1. The authority citation for part 1150

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 49 U.S.C.

701 note (sec. 204 of the ICC Termination Act

of 1995), 721(a), 10502, and 10901.

2. A new § 1150.36 is added to read

as follows: