[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 
PlansConnecticut; 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, 1993which 
become effective without further action by the State or EPAupon 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