[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 175 (Monday, September 11, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47076-47081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22130]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT-18-1-6482a; A-1-FRL-5271-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
PlansConnecticut; PM10 Attainment Plan and Contingency Measures for
New Haven
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut to satisfy certain federal
requirements for the New Haven initial PM10 nonattainment area. The
purpose of this action is to bring about the attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10). EPA is also approving reasonable available control measures
(RACM) and contingency measures for the New Haven initial PM10 moderate
nonattainment area as established in this SIP revision, since
Connecticut has demonstrated implementation of RACM will attain and
maintain the PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving Connecticut's
adoption of the PM10 NAAQS and emergency episode regulation. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 13, 1995, unless notice is
received by October 11, 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 Susan Studlien, Acting Director,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, EPA-New England, JFK
Federal Building (AAA), Boston, MA 02203-2211. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection by
appointment during normal business hours at the Air,
[[Page 47077]]
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, EPA-New England, One
Congress Street, 10th floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, (LE-131), Washington, DC 20460; and the Bureau of Air Management,
Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Cairns, (617) 565-4982.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Part D, Subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990 (hereafter referred to as ``the Act'') set out air quality
planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. The EPA
has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on
how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under Title
I of the Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM10
nonattainment area SIP requirements. [See, generally, 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).] Because EPA is
describing its interpretations here only in broad terms, the reader
should refer to the General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of
the interpretations of Title I advanced in this approval and the
supporting rationale.
By November 15, 1991, States containing initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas were required to submit, among other things, the
following items. [See Secs. 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.]
Provisions to assure that reasonably available control
measures (RACM)--including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)shall be
implemented no later than December 10, 1993;
Either a demonstration, including air quality modeling,
that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that
attainment by that date is impracticable;
Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3
years and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
Provisions to assure that the control requirements
applicable to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10
levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area.
Some provisions were due at a later date. States with initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit
program for the construction and operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM10 by June 30, 1992. [See Sec. 189(a).] Such
States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993which
become effective without further action by the State or EPAupon a
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to
attain the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. [See
Sec. 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44.]
Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revision
On March 24, 1994, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP revision
consists of 7 consent orders and corresponding compliance plans, which
contain enforceable control measures to reduce the re-entrainment of
fugitive emissions from roads in New Haven. The implementation of these
control measures by the end of 1994 will reduce PM10 emissions by 157
tons below the uncontrolled levels. Accordingly, CT DEP has adopted
reasonable available control measures (RACM) for PM10 and through
dispersion modeling has demonstrated that these control measures are
sufficient to expeditiously attain PM10 NAAQS in New Haven. As
required, the road dust control measures implemented through the
consent orders also assure maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS 3
years beyond the December 31, 1994 statutory attainment date.
Additionally, Connecticut's SIP revision provides for the
implementation of contingency measures, which were due to EPA by
November 15, 1993. CT DEP submitted a supplement on May 20, 1994, which
relies on a conservative strategy from one of the consent orders to
satisfy the requirements for Sec. 172(c)(9) contingency measures. This
submittal demonstrates that the City of New Haven's controls will go
beyond RACM and these excess reductions will serve as Connecticut's
contingency measures.
These submittals complete the attainment plan and contingency
measures for New Haven by meeting the applicable requirements to
demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994 and
maintenance of those standards for 3 years beyond that. These
requirements are outlined in Part D, Subparts 1 and 4 of the Act and
elaborated upon in the General Preamble.
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals. (See 57 FR 13565-66.) Specific requirements
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are detailed in the
Technical Support Document (TSD), dated March 27, 1995, accompanying
this approval action and are summarized, but not restated, here in the
following paragraphs. Interested parties should consult the TSD or
Connecticut's submittals for details on the aspects of the New Haven
SIP.
Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that each
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. Section 172(c)(9) of the Act also requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Sec. 110(a)(2).
EPA must also determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action. (See Sec. 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565.) EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are
set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216
(August 26, 1991). EPA attempts to make completeness determinations
within 60 days of receiving a submittal. However, a submittal is deemed
complete by operation of law if EPA does not make a completeness
determination by 6 months after receipt of the submittal.
The State of Connecticut held public hearings on August, 20, 1993,
October 18, 1993, December 29, 1993, and January 28, 1994 to entertain
public comment on the various components of the PM10 attainment plan,
consent orders, and compliance plans proposed for New Haven. The
Commissioner of CT DEP (the Governor's designee) submitted the plans
and consent orders to EPA on March 24, 1994 as a proposed revision to
the SIP. On May 20, 1994, the Commissioner further submitted proposed
PM10 contingency measures for New Haven.
On March 18, 1993, the State of Connecticut held a public hearing
to amend its air quality standards and emergency episode regulations
[[Page 47078]]
concerning PM10. The CT DEP adopted the amendments upon filing with the
Secretary of State on April 23, 1993, and the EPA received them as a
proposed revision to the SIP on March 16, 1995.
EPA reviewed all submittals to determine completeness in accordance
with criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V and as amended by
57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). In letters dated May 12, 1994, July 2,
1994, and April 5, 1995, EPA-New England informed the Connecticut
Governor's designee that the respective submittals were determined
complete and explained how the review process would proceed.
Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. The emissions inventory should also include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of allowable emissions
in the area. Because such inventories are necessary to an area's
attainment demonstration, the emissions inventories must be received
with the attainment SIP submission. (See 57 FR 13539.)
CT DEP determined that the PM10 nonattainment problem in New Haven
was a local problem in the area around the Stiles Street and Yankee Gas
monitoring sites. Mud and dirt from the unpaved areas in their vicinity
are chronically dragged out onto area streets and are re-entrained by
local traffic, contributing to high levels of airborne PM10 and
therefore exceedences at nearby monitors. Corroborating CT DEP's
observations and conclusions, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) made an
independent general assessment of the Stiles Street area, as presented
in a revised final report titled Recommendations for an Approvable SIP
Revision: Revised Final Report (September 10, 1993).
CT DEP submitted an emissions inventory for baseyear 1990. Due to
the localized and unique nature of the complex fugitive dust sources, a
micro-scale inventory was developed for this section of New Haven,
while the remainder of the inventory was developed on a larger scale
from county or town-wide data. Moreover, Connecticut DEP's dispersion
modeling confirms what its inventory shows: point sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 NAAQS violations in this airshed. EPA
considers control measures which do not expedite attainment, or affect
sources that contribute to PM10 levels, unreasonable even though
technologically and economically feasible.
Entrainment of dust by vehicular traffic contributed 2407 tons of
the 1990 baseyear actual PM10 emissions, which totalled 2990 tons.
Point sources contributed 120 tons and area sources added 463 tons
more. EPA is satisfied that Connecticut's inventory is sufficiently
accurate and comprehensive for determining the adequacy of the New
Haven attainment demonstration consistent with the requirements in
Sec. 172(c)(3) and Sec. 110(a)(2)(k). Therefore, EPA is approving this
emissions inventory, the details of which are embodied in the TSD.
RACM/RACT
As noted, the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were
required to submit provisions to assure that RACM/RACT are implemented
no later than December 10, 1993. (See Secs. 172(c)(1) and
189(a)(1)(C).) The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of
EPA's interpretation of the RACM/RACT requirement. (See 57 FR 13539-45
and 13560-61.)
CT DEP attributed the highest PM10 contributions in the New Haven
area to mud and dirt from unpaved areas being dragged out onto area
streets and re-entrained by local traffic. Also, frequent travel across
private unpaved storage areas and emissions from loading and unloading
of shredded scrap metal contribute to excessively high ambient PM10
levels in the area.
Accordingly, CT DEP negotiated and executed a set of 7 consent
orders and compliance plans to implement RACM for PM10 area sources in
New Haven. These orders and their effective dates are as outlined
below.
Consent Orders for New Haven Initial Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of
Order No. Connecticut vs. Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8073............................ City of New Haven. September 24,
1993.
8074............................ Waterfront November 5, 1993.
Enterprises, Inc..
8075............................ Laydon September 21,
Construction. 1993.
8076............................ United December 2, 1993.
Illuminating
Company.
8076c........................... M. J. Metals, Inc. June 18, 1993.
8078............................ New Haven November 15, 1993.
Terminal, Inc..
8079............................ Yankee Gas September 24,
Services Company. 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the control measures adopted accomplish the
following.
All unpaved private industrial travel lanes and unpaved
public roads in the Stiles Street area will be eliminated.
All paved private travel lanes will be delineated with
concrete rails or other effective borders for the purpose of
eliminating off-pavement travel and reducing the transfer of exposed
soil to adjacent road surfaces.
Private travel roads will be posted with speed limit and
directional signing to reduce additional fugitive emissions and vehicle
miles traveled (VMT).
All open storage lots will be covered with gravel to a
minimum depth of 2 inches.
All areas not used for travel, storage, or parking (or any
other active use) will be mulched and vegetated or covered with gravel
and rendered inaccessible to vehicular travel.
Any significant piles of sand, scrap metal, or other
erodible materials will be covered, sheltered with a wind break, and/or
operated in conjunction with a wet suppression system.
Segments of some public roads in the area will be lined
with guard rails or other barriers to prevent further off-pavement
travel.
All paved private travel lanes and city streets in the
Stiles Street area will be put on a maintenance plan, which includes
periodic street sweeping.
Each consent order requires a schedule and written plan detailing
control measures designed to reduce PM10 emissions for each party's
responsibility. CT DEP included these orders and plans in the March 24,
1994 submittal and EPA will incorporate them into Connecticut's SIP.
Approval of the SIP will make these consent orders and compliance plans
federally enforceable. EPA is therefore approving the control strategy
as meeting RACM/RACT requirements.
[[Page 47079]]
Demonstration
As noted, initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were to submit
a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing that the plan
will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994. [See Sec. 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act.] CT
DEP submitted an attainment demonstration based on dispersion modeling
in accordance with EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Modeling
(Revised)'' (GAQM) (40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W) to model New Haven for a
determination of PM10 design concentrations.
The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms per cubic meter
(g/m\3\), and the standard is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one. [See 40 CFR
50.6.] Based on modeling 5 years of representative meteorological data
and projecting growth on a controlled emissions inventory for 1994, the
24-hour design concentration for New Haven was predicted as 135
g/m\3\. This demonstrates that implementation of RACM
prescribed for New Haven will attain the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. The annual
PM10 NAAQS is attained when the expected annual arithmetic mean
concentration is less than or equal to 50 g/m\3\. The
predicted annual design concentration of 46 g/m\3\
demonstrates that New Haven will also attain the annual PM10 NAAQS.
CT DEP's submittal further projected emissions for New Haven
inventory to 1997 in order to demonstrate maintenance. Further
dispersion modeling indicates that the control strategy, summarized
above in the section titled RACT/RACM, will maintain air quality levels
less than the PM10 NAAQS at least through December 31, 1997. This
demonstration meets the EPA requirement for a minimum 3-year
maintenance projection beyond the statutory attainment deadline. The
TSD provides more details on EPA's review of the maintenance
demonstration and the control strategy used.
PM10 Precursors
The control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of
PM10 also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors unless
EPA determines such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10
levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area. [See Sec. 189(e) of the
Act.]
CT DEP's analysis of air quality and emissions data for New Haven
demonstrates that PM10 nonattainment in New Haven is a micro-scale
fugitive dust problem. EPA agrees that gaseous emissions, such as VOC,
SO2, and NO2, do not contribute to PM10 levels above the
NAAQS in New Haven. Consequently, stationary sources in New Haven need
no further emission controls for possible PM10 precursors. The TSD
accompanying this notice contains a further discussion of the data and
analyses addressing the contribution of possible precursor sources in
this area.
Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress
Section 171(1) of the Act defines reasonable further progress (RFP)
as such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by Part D or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. The PM10 nonattainment area
plan revisions demonstrating attainment must contain quantitative
milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years until the area is
redesignated attainment and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by
December 31, 1994. (See Sec. 189(c) of the Act.)
In implementing RFP for this initial moderate area, EPA has
reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area
to determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those
provided in the SIP should be required in order to ensure attainment of
the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. [See Sec. 171(1).] Even though
Connecticut's PM10 SIP does not require that all measures required for
attainment be fully implemented effective December 1, 1993, CT DEP's
dispersion modeling aptly confirms that implementation of RACM will
bring about attainment by December 31, 1994, the statutory attainment
date for initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. (See
Sec. 188(c)(1).) EPA keys the first milestone to the SIP revision
containing control measures which will result in emission reductions
(57 FR 13539) and, since the PM10 attainment date is less than 3 years
from the actual submittal date of CT DEP's SIP revision, EPA is
accepting CT DEP's SIP revision as its first quantitative milestone for
New Haven. Subsequently, until New Haven is redesignated to attainment,
Connecticut's SIP commits CT DEP to submit quantitative milestone and
RFP reports to EPA every 3 years. EPA is therefore approving
Connecticut's approach to quantitative milestones and RFP.
Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA. (See Secs. 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556.) The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (See 57 FR 13541.) Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in the SIP. (See
Sec. 110(a)(2)(C).)
The particular control measures contained in the SIP are summarized
above under the section headed RACM/RACT. These control measures are
defined and detailed in the compliance plans required under each
negotiated consent order. Approval of this SIP submittal and
incorporation by reference will make the consent orders, along with the
control measures perscribed and contained therein, for New Haven
federally enforceable.
Contingency Measures
As provided in Sec. 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. (See generally 57 FR 13543-44.) These measures
were required to be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial
moderate nonattainment areas. These measures must take effect without
further action by the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that
the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM10 NAAQS by the
applicable statutory deadline.
Connecticut's May 20, 1994 supplemental submittal for New Haven
addressed contingency measures required under Sec. 172(c)(9), since the
submittal on March 24, 1994 did not. It relies on a conservative
strategy through the consent order and compliance plan for the City of
New Haven. This submittal demonstrates that the City of New Haven is
controlling PM10 emissions beyond RACM. CT DEP did not consider
(i.e., take credit for) these additional measures in the 1994
attainment year or 1997 maintenance year modeling demonstrations.
Specifically, these measures consist of the following:
Installing granite curbs along Waterfront Street between
Forbes Avenue and Alabama Street;
Planting vegetation in barren areas between Waterfront
Street and the I-95 exit ramp to the east, including new trees to act
as permanent barriers from illegal parking;
[[Page 47080]]
Reconstructing Stiles Street, including installation of
sewers, catch-basins, curbs, and sidewalks on both sides of the street;
Installing granite curbing along both sides of Connecticut
Avenue from the edge of existing curbing north to Albia Street and
south to connect with the existing curbing; and
Repaving Alabama Street from Waterfront Street to its end
at the east, including installation of sewers, catch-basins, curbs,
handicapped curb cuts at the corners, and vegetation between curb and
lot lines, and fencing where necessary.
Contingency emissions reductions should be approximately equal to
the emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP for one year or
25 percent for the initial moderate nonattainment areas. (See 57 FR
13543-4.) CT DEP's contingency measures submittal estimates the
emissions reductions due to these measures to be 84 tons per year.
Since total emission reductions required to demonstrate attainment for
New Haven by December 31, 1994 are 157 tpy, the estimated 84 tpy
emissions reduction (or 53.5 percent) from the control measures found
in the control plan for the City of New Haven will exceed one year or
25 percent of RFP.
EPA finds that CT DEP's contingency measures for New Haven fulfill
Sec. 172(c)(9) requirements.
Other SIP Requirements
CT DEP has amended Sections 22a-174-24(f) and -24(g) ``Connecticut
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter'' and 22a-174-6(a) and -6(b) ``Air Pollution'' emergency episode
procedures.'' These regulations now reflect the PM10 NAAQS and
contain the PM10 alert, warning and emergency levels that appear
in EPA's ``Example Regulations for Prevention of Air Pollution
Emergency Episodes'' (Appendix L to Part 51). There only exist two
outstanding definitions which Connecticut should adopt to complete all
Sec. 110 requirements: ``particulate matter emissions'' and ``PM10
emissions,'' but their absence here does not preclude EPA's approval of
all else detailed above.
Under Sec. 188 of the Act, if an initial moderate nonattainment
area does not meet the December 31, 1994 attainment deadline, the area
is normally ``bumped up'' to a serious non-attainment area and must
implement additional control measures and must also submit another SIP
revision. However, if an area can show, among other things, that the
area had no more than one exceedance at any monitoring site in the
nonattainment area in the year preceding the extension year, the area
may apply for, and obtain a 1-year extension of the attainment date.
(EPA may grant a total of two 1-year extensions of the attainment date
to a qualifying area.) Based on air quality data for 1992-94, New Haven
did not meet the December 31, 1994 attainment deadline, mainly because
of a delay in implementing RACM. However, since mid-1994, when the
implementation of New Haven's prescribed control measures were mostly
underway and in some cases complete, New Haven has not seen further
exceedences of the PM10 NAAQS. Actually, there has been a dramatic
decrease in monitored PM10 levels at the Yankee Gas monitor since
then. On March 31, 1995, Connecticut DEP applied for a 1-year extension
of the attainment deadline for New Haven, and EPA is granting the
extension in a separate notice elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
This, however, does not preclude EPA from approving the attainment plan
and contingency measures for New Haven.
Final Action
EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted to the EPA on March 24
and May 20, 1994. These revisions include 7 consent orders (listed
previously in the table in the section titled RACM/RACT) and compliance
plans which the CT DEP negotiated and executed to bring about
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS for the New Haven initial moderate
PM10 nonattainment area. These orders and plans impose RACM and
delineate contingency measures for New Haven. Among other things, the
State of Connecticut has demonstrated that, with the implementation of
RACM, the New Haven initial moderate PM10 nonattainment area attains
the PM10 NAAQS and will maintain air quality levels below the NAAQS at
least through December 31, 1997.
EPA is also approving two amendments to the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies concerning abatement of air pollution:
adoption of the PM10 NAAQS in amended Sections 22a-174-24(f) and -24(g)
``Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter'' and emergency episodes for PM10 in amended
Sections 22a-174-6(a) and -6(b) ```Air Pollution'' emergency episode
procedures'', both received by EPA on March 16, 1995 and effective in
the State of Connecticut on July 7, 1993.
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 November 13, 1995 unless adverse or critical comments are
received by October 11, 1995.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by simultaneously publishing a subsequent
notice that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then 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 on November 13, 1995.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 USC Sec. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 USC Secs. 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.
Under Secs. 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 revision, the
State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under Sec. 110 of the Clean Air 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. 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.
[[Page 47081]]
SIP approvals under Sec. 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 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. USEPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 USC
Sec. 7410 (a)(2).
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 revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of
these tables. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted
this action from review under Executive Order 12866.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under Sec. 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 November 13, 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 Sec. 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Connecticut was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: May 26, 1995.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.
Part 52 of 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 USC 7401-7671q
Subpart H--Connecticut
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(68) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.370 Identification of plan.
* * * * * *
(c) * * *
(68) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on March 24, 1994,
May 20, 1994, and March 4, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated March 24, 1994 submitting a revision to the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(B) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated May 20, 1994 submitting a supplemental revision to the
Connecticut State Implementation Plan.
(C) State Order No. 8073: State of Connecticut vs. City of New
Haven (effective September 24, 1993) and attached plan titled
``Remedial Action Plan for Prevention of Airborne Particulate Matter
and Fugitive Discharge of Visible Emissions in the Alabama Street/East
Shore Parkway Area of New Haven.''
(D) State Order No. 8074: State of Connecticut vs. Waterfront
Enterprises, Inc. (effective November 5, 1993) and attached plan titled
``Proposed Operation Plan in Response to Unilateral Order (September
20, 1993).''
(E) State Order No. 8075: State of Connecticut vs. Laydon
Construction, (effective September 21, 1993) and attached plan titled
``Plan for Control of Fugitive Emissions of PM10 (September 21,
1993).''
(F) State Order No. 8076: State of Connecticut vs. United
Illuminating Company (effective December 2, 1993) and attached plan
titled ``Remediation Plan for Fugitive Emissions: Alabama Street and
Connecticut Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut (November 19, 1993).''
(G) State Order No. 8076c: State of Connecticut vs. M. J. Metals,
Inc. (effective June 18, 1993).
(H) State Order No. 8078: State of Connecticut vs. New Haven
Terminal, Inc. (effective November 15, 1993) and attached plan titled
``Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Revised January 19, 1994).''
(I) State Order No. 8079: State of Connecticut vs. Yankee Gas
Services Company (effective September 24, 1993) and attached plan
titled ``Revised Compliance Plan for Consent Order No. 8079 (August 31,
1993).''
(J) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection dated March 4, 1994 (received March 16, 1995) submitting two
amendments to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies concerning
abatement of air pollution: amended Sections 22a-174-24(f) and -24(g)
``Connecticut primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter'' and amended Sections 22a-174-6(a) and -6(b) ```Air
Pollution' emergency episode procedures'' (both effective July 7,
1993).
(K) Amended Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: amended
Sections 22a-174-24(f) and -24(g) ``Connecticut primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter'' and amended
Sections 22a-174-6(a) and -6(b) ```Air Pollution' emergency episode
procedures'' (both effective July 7, 1993).
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) An attainment plan and demonstration which outlines
Connecticut's control strategy and for attainment and maintenance of
the PM10 NAAQS, implements and meets RACM and RACT requirements, and
provides contingency measures for New Haven.
(B) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.
[FR Doc. 95-22130 Filed 9-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
