Federal Register: August 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 168)
DOCID: fr30au07-7 FR Doc E7-17004
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52
EPA ID: [EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0373; A-1-FRL-8461-5]
ACTION: Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule.
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Establishment of Interim Progress for the Annual Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 29, 2007, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 1, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.
The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision
establishes early fine particulate (PM
Organization of this document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. I. Background and Purpose
II. Comparison of Year 2002 Emissions to Year 2009
III. Adequacy Process and SIP Approval
IV. Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets V. Basis for Approval
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Purpose
On December 17, 2004, (69 FR 943; January 5, 2005), EPA designated
the New YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island, NYNJCT area as
nonattainment for the annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQSs) for fine particle pollution or PM
In the June 8, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 33305), EPA announced
that the direct PM
determinations. In addition, with the establishment of adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets, New Jersey can independently determine conformity for the New Jersey portion of the NYNJCT PM
On April 17, 2007, the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP for establishing early
fine particulate (PM
transportation conformity (70 FR 24280; May 6, 2005), Connecticut's April 17, 2007 SIP revision establishes early motor vehicle budgets for direct PM
II. Comparison of Year 2002 Emissions to Year 2009
The total inventory of direct PM
Table 1.Direct Annual PM2.5 Emissions [Tons] Area Nonroad Point Onroad 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 Fairfield County................................................ 2,349 2,388 526 454 190 202 269 185 New Haven County................................................ 2,427 2,476 448 395 202 220 252 175 Total for CT Portion of NYNJCT PM2.5 Nonattainment Area....... 4,776 4,864 974 849 392 422 521 360
The total inventory of NO
Table 2.Annual NOX Emissions [Tons] Area Nonroad Point Onroad 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 2002 2009 Fairfield County................................................ 3,134 3,269 7,150 6,104 3,892 4,183 17,411 9,314 New Haven County................................................ 2,937 3,061 7,935 7,108 2,305 2,429 16,435 8,965 Total for CT Portion of NYNJCT PM2.5 Nonattainment Area....... 6,071 6,330 15,085 13,212 6,197 6,612 33,846 18,279 III. Adequacy Process and SIP Approval
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on EPA's third set of transportation conformity amendments in response to a case brought by the Environmental Defense Fund. The decision held that conformity determinations could no longer be based on submitted SIP emissions budgets, prior to a positive adequacy determination by EPA.
A May 14, 1999, EPA memorandum from Gay MacGregor to the Regional
Division Directors provides guidance on how to review budgets for
adequacy and the process for public comment and notification (posting
on the Web). The May 14, 1999 guidance is available on EPA's conformity
Web site at URL address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/epaguidf.pdf. EPA provided additional guidance in its
Final Rulemaking on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 4000440081) ``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8hour Ozone and
EPA initiated the adequacy process for Connecticut's motor vehicle
emissions budgets on April 19, 2007, by announcing that Connecticut had
submitted an early progress SIP for PM
which EPA determines whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i) through 93.118(e)(4)(vi) and 93.118(e)(5). On May 24, 2007, EPA notified the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) that no comments were received during the thirty day public comment period, and that EPA had determined the 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets submitted on April 17, 2007, to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA New England published a Notice of Adequacy Federal Register on Tuesday, June 5, 2007 (72 FR 31069), announcing our May 24, 2007 adequacy determination and making the motor vehicle emissions budgets effective on June 20, 2007. A copy of EPA's May 24, 2007 adequacy determination to CT DEP
and the Federal Register Notice of Adequacy are both posted in the electronic docket as well as on EPA's Web site ``SIP Submissions that EPA has Found Adequate or Inadequate,'' at URL address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm .
This positive adequacy determination simplifies the administrative
process for demonstrating transportation conformity by establishing the
2009 direct PM
Today's direct final rulemaking approves Connecticut's adequate
2009 direct PM
IV. Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
The early direct PM
Table 3.2009 Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets Annual direct
PM2.5 Annual NOX emissions emissions (tons) (tons) Connecticut Portion of the NYNJCT 360 18,279 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area...............
V. Basis for Approval
EPA's review of Connecticut's SIP revision concludes that this SIP
revision is consistent with EPA's Transportation Conformity Rule.
Approval of Connecticut's SIP revision is directionally sound since it
would approve year 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets which are more
stringent than the year 2002 baseline emissions now used to evaluate transportation conformity in the NYNJCT PM
nonattainment area. The projected overall annual inventory reduction in direct PM
Connecticut's projected reduction in direct PM
1. Fairfield County and New Haven County were included in the New
YorkNorthern New JerseyLong Island, NYNJCT PM
\1\ This SIP is addressing requirements for the annual PM
2. There were no monitored violations of EPA's annual
3. There is a significant projected tonnage decrease in overall
4. There is a very large percent reduction projected in both
5. The large reduction in Connecticut's NO
EPA is approving the Connecticut SIP revision for establishment of
interim progress for the annual fine particle National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, which was submitted on April 17, 2007. The direct
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective October 29, 2007 without further notice unless the EPA receives adverse comments by October 1, 2007.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 29, 2007 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 1044).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 October 29, 2007. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 20, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.379 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.379 Control strategy: PM
ApprovalRevision to the State Implementation Plan submitted by
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on April
17, 2007. the revision is for the purpose of establishing early fine
[FR Doc. E717004 Filed 82907; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 021142023,
telephone number (617) 9181668, fax number (617) 9180668, email