Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Redesignation of City of New Haven PM10, 59657-59664 [05-20418]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59657-59664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20418]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[R01-OAR-2005-CT-0003; A-1-FRL-7979-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Redesignation of City of New Haven PM10 
Nonattainment Area to Attainment and Approval of the Limited 
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision approves 
the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the New Haven PM10 
nonattainment area (New Haven NAA) in the State of Connecticut and 
grants a request by the State to redesignate the New Haven NAA to 
attainment for 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 approving this 
redesignation and LMP because Connecticut has met the applicable 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 12, 2005, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 14, 2005. 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.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in 
EDocket (RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-CT-0003 by one of the following 
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional Material 
in EDocket (RME), EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is 
EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Once in the system, 
select ``quick search,'' then key in the appropriate RME Docket 
identification number. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
    3. E-mail: conroy.dave@epa.gov.
    4. Fax: (617) 918-1661.
    5. Mail: ``RME ID Number R01-OAR-2005-CT-0003'', David Conroy, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: David 
Conroy, Air Programs Branch Chief, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One 
Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours 
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Regional Material in EDocket 
(RME) ID Number R01-OAR-2005-CT-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments 
received will be included in the public docket without change and may 
be made available online at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including 
any

[[Page 59658]]

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information 
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
through Regional Material in EDocket (RME), regulations.gov, or e-mail, 
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The EPA 
RME Web site and the federal regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous 
access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME 
or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
Regional Material in EDocket (RME) index at https://docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at the Office of 
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New 
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. 
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, 
telephone number (617) 918-1684, fax number (617) 918-0684, e-mail 
simcox.alison@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    In addition to the publicly available docket materials available 
for inspection electronically in Regional Material in EDocket, and the 
hard copy available at the Regional Office, which are identified in the 
ADDRESSES section above, copies of the State submittal and EPA's 
technical support document are also available for public inspection 
during normal business hours, by appointment at the Bureau of Air 
Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State Office 
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

II. Rulemaking Information

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

A. Background and Purpose
B. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan
C. Review of the Connecticut Submittal Addressing the Requirements 
for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

A. Background and Purpose

    On the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, PM10 areas 
meeting the qualifications of Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were 
designated nonattainment by operation of law. [See generally, 42 U.S.C. 
7407(d)(4)(B).] These areas included all former Group I areas and any 
other areas violating the PM10 standards prior to January 1, 1989. On 
October 31, 1990 (55 FR 45799), EPA redefined a Group I area for 
Connecticut as the City of New Haven; the remainder of the State was 
designated as Group III (areas with a strong likelihood of attaining 
the PM10 NAAQS). Subsequently, after enactment of the CAA on 
November 15, 1990, New Haven was designated moderate nonattainment for 
PM10 in 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991).
    The air quality in attainment or unclassifiable areas (Groups II 
and III) are regulated under the prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program, under which an area's air quality is not 
allowed to deteriorate beyond prescribed maximum allowable increases in 
pollutant concentrations (i.e., increments). On February 27, 2003, EPA 
approved revisions to Connecticut's SIP that implement CAA requirements 
regarding the PSD program. See 68 FR 9009.
    The PSD program, however, does not apply to nonattainment areas. 
During the period that New Haven has been classified as nonattainment 
for PM10, new major sources or major modifications proposing 
to locate in New Haven have been required to comply with the 
nonattainment provisions of Subsection 22a-174-3(l) (Permits 
Requirements for Non-attainment Areas) of the Regulations of 
Connecticut State Agencies.
    On June 23, 2005, the State of Connecticut formally submitted a 
redesignation request entitled ``Redesignation to Attainment and 
Limited Maintenance Plan for the City of New Haven PM10 
Nonattainment Area'' as a SIP revision. Upon the effective date of 
today's action, the PM10 designation status for the City of 
New Haven under 40 CFR part 81 will be revised to attainment, and 
Connecticut's PSD program will become applicable in the New Haven 
maintenance area. Sections below describe how Connecticut has 
adequately addressed all of the requirements of the CAA for 
redesignation of New Haven to attainment, and has qualified for use of 
a LMP for the first 10-year period (2006 to 2015).

B. Summary of Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan

(1) How Can a Nonattainment Area Be Redesignated to Attainment?
    Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the 
area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS 
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of 
the CAA provides the criteria for redesignation. These criteria are 
further clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John 
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment. The criteria 
for redesignation are:

    (a) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the 
applicable NAAQS;
    (b) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for 
the area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    (c) The State containing the area has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under Section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    (d) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan, 
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations, and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions; and

[[Page 59659]]

    (e) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for 
the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

(2) What Is the LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas 
Seeking Redesignation to Attainment, and How Can an Area Qualify for 
This Option?
    On August 9, 2001, EPA issued guidance on streamlined maintenance 
plan provisions for certain moderate PM10 nonattainment 
areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from Lydia Wegman, 
Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division, entitled 
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10 
Nonattainment Areas'', hereafter called ``the Wegman memo''). The 
policy described in this guidance includes a statistical demonstration 
that areas meeting certain air quality criteria will, with a high 
degree of probability, maintain the standard 10 years into the future. 
Thus, EPA has already provided the maintenance demonstration for areas 
that meet the air quality criteria outlined in the policy. It follows 
that future-year emission inventories for these areas and some of the 
standard analyses to determine transportation conformity with the SIP 
are no longer necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP option, the area should have attained the 
PM10 NAAQS and the average PM10 design values for 
the area, based upon the most recent five years of air quality data at 
all monitors in the area, should be at or below the LMP requirement of 
98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 [mu]g/m\3\ 
for the annual PM10 NAAQS. If an area cannot meet this test, 
it still qualifies for the LMP option if the average design values 
(ADVs) of a site are less than their respective site-specific critical 
design value (CDV). A CDV is the highest possible ADV at which there is 
a less than 10 percent risk of future violation of the PM10 
NAAQS. At least five years of data from a monitoring site are required 
to calculate the site's CDV. Given sufficient site data, a CDV can be 
found by using a mathematical relationship between the NAAQS, ADV, 
standard deviation of past design values (a measure of their 
variability over time), and a selected risk factor (in this case, a 10 
percent risk of violation of the PM10 NAAQS). For further 
details about the CDV calculation method, see Attachment A of the 
Wegman memo. Section 2.2 of the Connecticut SIP submittal shows 
calculations used to derive the CDV for the Stiles Street monitoring 
site in New Haven, which is the site currently used to assess whether 
the city is in attainment with the PM10 NAAQS.
    The CDV test was used to determine whether the New Haven NAA 
qualifies for the LMP option because the 2003 24-hour ADVs for the 
PM10 Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor at the Stiles 
Street site in New Haven exceeded 98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS. A CDV of 124 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour standard 
was calculated for the Stiles Street site using over five years of data 
from the FEM monitor and over 10 years of data from a Federal Reference 
Method (FRM) monitor. All 24-hour ADVs for the Stiles Street site, 
including the ADV for 2003, have remained below this CDV, indicating a 
very low probability (less than 1 in 10 chance) of exceeding the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS in the future. Therefore, this site passes 
the CDV test and qualifies for the LMP option.
    In addition to meeting design value criteria, an area qualifying 
for the LMP option should expect only limited growth in on-road motor 
vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should 
pass a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test designed to show 
that expected growth in vehicle miles traveled will not cause the area 
to exceed the margin of safety for the relevant PM10 
standard for a given area (in this case, the CDV for the 24-hour 
PM10 NAAQS at the Stiles Street site). In addition to 
meeting these requirements, the LMP must include an attainment-year 
emission inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved 
air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions (See pages 
A-6 and A-7 of the Wegman memo). Sections below describe how the 
Connecticut LMP meets each of these requirements.
(3) How Is Conformity Treated Under the LMP Option?
    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the 
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment 
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan. 
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating 
that a federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate 
that expected emissions from planned actions are consistent with the 
emissions budget for the area. While EPA's LMP policy does not exempt 
an area from the need to affirm conformity, it explains that the area 
may demonstrate conformity without submitting an emissions budget. 
Emissions budgets in LMP areas are treated as essentially not 
constraining for the length of the maintenance period because it is 
unreasonable to expect that an area satisfying the LMP criteria will 
experience so much growth during that period of time that a violation 
of the PM10 NAAQS would result.
    For transportation conformity purposes, EPA concludes that, as long 
as the area qualifies for the LMP option, emissions in New Haven need 
not be capped for the maintenance period and, therefore, a regional 
emissions analysis is not required. Similarly, Federal actions subject 
to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the 
``budget test'' specified in Sec.  93.158 (a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule for 
the same reasons that the budgets are essentially considered to be 
unlimited.

C. Review of the Connecticut Submittal Addressing the Requirements for 
Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

(1) Has the State Demonstrated That the New Haven NAA Has Attained the 
Applicable NAAQS?
    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 
PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from 
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10 
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System 
(AQS) database.
    The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 [mu]g/m\3\. An area has 
attained the 24-hour standard when the average number of expected 
exceedances per year is less than or equal to one when averaged over a 
three-year period (40 CFR 50.6). To make this determination, three 
consecutive years of complete ambient air quality data must be 
collected in accordance with federal requirements (40 CFR part 58, 
including appendices). Table 1 in the Connecticut SIP submittal lists 
24-hour design values for 1999 through 2003. The 24-hour design value 
is below 150 [mu]g/m\3\ for each of these years at all PM10 
monitoring sites in Connecticut (range: 31-107 [mu]g/m\3\). There have 
been no exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the New 
Haven NAA during the past five years. Thus, currently, the expected 
number of days exceeding the 24-hour standard is zero, and the New 
Haven NAA has attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.
    The annual PM10 NAAQS is 50 [mu]g/m\3\. To determine 
attainment at a monitoring site, the standard is compared to the 
expected annual average, which is calculated by averaging the 
arithmetic average from the previous three years. Table 2 in the 
Connecticut SIP submittal lists annual average design values for 1999 
through 2003. These values are below 50 [mu]g/m\3\ for each of these 
years at all PM10 monitoring sites in

[[Page 59660]]

Connecticut (range: 11-37 [mu]g/m\3\). Thus, the three year annual 
average is below 50 [mu]g/m\3\, and the New Haven NAA has attained the 
annual PM10 NAAQS.
(2) Does the New Haven NAA Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 
110(k) of the Clean Air Act?
    To qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be fully 
approved under section 110(k) of the CAA, and must satisfy all 
requirements that apply to the area. EPA approved Connecticut's 
PM10 Attainment Plan for New Haven on September 11, 1995 (60 
FR 47076). Connecticut's PM10 attainment plan demonstrated 
that the implementation of reasonably available control technology and 
reasonably available control measures (RACT/RACM), as embodied in seven 
consent orders, is sufficient to attain and maintain the 
PM10 NAAQS. Thus, the area has a fully approved 
nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.
(3) Has the State Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and 
Part D of the Clean Air Act?
    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the CAA requires that a state containing 
a nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under 
section 110 and Part D of the CAA. EPA interprets this to mean the 
state must meet all requirements that applied to the area prior to, and 
at the time of, the submission of a complete redesignation request. The 
following is a summary of how Connecticut meets these requirements.
(a) Clean Air Act Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for 
state implementation plans. These requirements include, but are not 
limited to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after 
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and 
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures 
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit 
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for 
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting, 
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency 
participation. For purposes of redesignation, EPA's review of the 
Connecticut SIP shows that the State has satisfied all requirements 
under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.
(b) Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas 
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a 
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10 
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and 
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional 
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following 
paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the New Haven 
area.
(c) Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for 
nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements 
may be found in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992). 
The requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures 
needed for attainment were satisfied with the approved PM10 Attainment 
Plan for New Haven. See 60 FR 47076 (September 11, 1995).
(d) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate, 
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the New Haven 
PM10 NAA. The PM10 Attainment Plan for New Haven 
that was approved by EPA in 1995 (60 FR 47076) included an emissions 
inventory for base year 1990. As described in the Attainment Plan, 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, primarily due to re-entrainment of mud and 
dirt from the unpaved areas by local traffic. To estimate 
PM10 emissions from all source sectors, CT DEP used the 1999 
National Emissions Inventory (NEI). This inventory represents the level 
of emissions in the New Haven area during the five-year time period 
(1999-2003) used to demonstrate that the area qualifies for the LMP 
option. This inventory shows that fugitive dust sources were the 
primary contributor to PM10 in New Haven County, with lesser 
contributions from on-road, non-road, area (other than fugitive dust), 
and point sources. EPA is satisfied that the inventory contained in the 
Attainment Plan and in the NEI is sufficiently accurate and 
comprehensive to meet the requirement for an emission inventory.
(e) Section 172(c)(5)--New Source Review (NSR)
    The CAA Amendments of 1990 contained revisions to the new source 
review (NSR) program requirements for the construction and operation of 
new and modified major stationary sources located in nonattainment 
areas. The CAA requires states to amend their SIPs to reflect these 
revisions, but does not require submittal of this element along with 
the other SIP elements. The CAA established June 30, 1992 as the 
submittal date for the revised NSR programs (Section 189 of the CAA). 
In the New Haven Area, the requirements of the Part D NSR program will 
be replaced by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
program and the maintenance area NSR program upon the effective date of 
redesignation. Revisions to the Part D NSR rules for nonattainment 
areas and to PSD rules for attainment areas in Connecticut were 
approved by EPA on February 27, 2003 (68 FR 9009) and can be found in 
Subsection 22a-174 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
(f) Section 172(c)(7) Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air 
Quality Monitoring Requirements.
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an 
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to 
verify attainment status of the area. Connecticut currently (as of 
December 2004) maintains seven PM10 monitoring sites. 
Monitors at these sites are operating in accordance with 40 CFR part 
58. The State has committed to continue operating a PM10 
monitoring network, and has agreed (in Hearing Report in Connecticut 
SIP submittal, DEP Response to Comment 3, p. 4) to maintain a 
continuous PM10 FEM or FRM monitor at the Criscuolo Park 
site, which will replace the Stiles Street site about October 2005 due 
to highway construction. If Crisuolo Park site becomes unsuitable, a 
monitor will be maintained at an alternate site agreeable to EPA and CT 
DEP. This monitor must be maintained over the maintenance period to 
verify compliance with the PM10 NAAQS in the New Haven area.
    To continue to qualify for the LMP option, Connecticut must ensure 
that the ADV of the Criscuolo Park PM10 monitor remains 
below the monitor's CDV. Connecticut has agreed (in Hearing Report in 
Connecticut SIP submittal, DEP Response to Comment 4, p. 4) to 
calculate the ADV for this monitor on an annual basis and to report 
this value to EPA. When five years of data are available, Connecticut 
will calculate the CDV for the monitoring site and compare this to the 
five-year ADV; CDV and ADV values will be reported to EPA annually over 
the maintenance period.

[[Page 59661]]

(g) Section 172(c)(9) Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area 
fails to meet reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements or fails 
to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. EPA approved 
Connecticut's PM10 Attainment Plan and Contingency Measures 
for New Haven on September 11, 1995 (60 FR 47076). Contingency 
provisions are also required for maintenance plans under Section 
175(a)(d). Connecticut provided contingency measures in their LMP. 
These measures are described below.
(h) Part D Subpart 4
    Part D Subpart 4, Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to 
any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to 
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the 
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully 
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment. 
These requirements include: (i) Provisions to assure that RACM was 
implemented by December 10, 1993; (ii) Either a demonstration that the 
plan provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not 
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by 
that date was impracticable;
    (iii) Quantitative milestones which were achieved every 3 years and 
which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment 
by December 31, 1994; and
    (iv) 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 determined that such sources do not contribute 
significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the 
area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP upon EPA 
approval of the PM10 Attainment Plan for New Haven on 
September 11, 1995 (60 FR 47076).
(4) Has the State Demonstrated That the Air Quality Improvement Is Due 
to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions?
    The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in 
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making 
this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements 
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing 
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other 
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are 
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence 
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. EPA believes that 
areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS even under worst 
case meteorological conditions.
    The maintenance demonstration is considered satisfied for New Haven 
because the area meets the air-quality criteria in the Wegman memo 
(pages A-4 and A-5 of the memo) and, thus, has a very low probability 
(1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. These criteria are met 
when ADVs for monitoring sites are less than CDVs for those sites with 
little variability in data over the years, the area expects only 
limited growth in on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions 
(including fugitive dust), and the area passes a motor vehicle regional 
emissions analysis test. A more detailed description of the LMP 
qualifying criteria and how the New Haven area meets these criteria is 
provided in Section (6).
(5) Does the Area Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to 
Section 175A of the Clean Air Act?
    In this action, EPA is proposing to fully approve the maintenance 
plan as allowed by the LMP guidance described in Section 6 below.
(6) Has the State Demonstrated That the New Haven NAA Qualifies for the 
LMP Option?
    The Wegman memo explains the requirements for an area to qualify 
for the LMP option. First, the area should be attaining the NAAQS. 
Section 2.0 of the Connecticut SIP submittal summarizes quality-assured 
ambient monitoring data showing that the New Haven area met both the 
24-hour and annual PM10 NAAQS for the period 1999-2003 and 
continues to do so. As stated above in Section C(1), EPA has determined 
that the New Haven area is in attainment with the PM10 
NAAQS.
    Second, the design value at each PM10 monitor for the 
past five years must be either (1) at or below the margin of safety 
levels of 98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 
[mu]g/m\3\ for the annual PM10 NAAQS, or (2) be less than 
the site-specific CDV, indicating that the site has a very low 
probability (1 in 10) of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. EPA's 
review of AQS data for 1999-2003 shows that New Haven qualifies for the 
LMP option using the second option. The CDV test is appropriate 
because, in 2003, one PM10 monitor (of two) at the New Haven 
Stiles Street site had a 24-hour design value above 98 [mu]g/m\3\ (107 
[mu]g/m\3\). Section B (2) above describes how this site passes the CDV 
test and qualifies for the LMP option.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test. This test determines whether increased emissions from 
on-road mobile sources could, in the next 10 years, increase 
concentrations in the area and threaten the assumption of maintenance 
under the LMP option. Section 3.0 of the Connecticut SIP submittal 
demonstrates that when adjusted for future on-road mobile emissions, 
New Haven passes a motor vehicle emissions analysis test with a design 
value of 102 [mu]g/m\3\, which is less than the (Stiles Street) CDV of 
124 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour NAAQS. Thus Connecticut has shown that 
New Haven qualifies for the LMP option as described in the Wegman memo.
(7) Does the State Have an Approved Attainment Plan That Includes an 
Emissions Inventory Which Can Be Used To Demonstrate Attainment of the 
NAAQS?
    The PM10 Attainment Plan for New Haven that was approved 
in 1995 (60 FR 47076) includes an emissions inventory which was used to 
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS. As described in the Attainment 
Plan, 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, primarily due to re-entrainment of mud 
and dirt from the unpaved areas by local traffic. These areas have 
since been paved.
    To estimate PM10 emissions from all source sectors, CT 
DEP used the 1999 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). This inventory 
represents the level of emissions in the New Haven area during the 
five-year time period (1999-2003) used to demonstrate that the area 
qualifies for the LMP option. This inventory shows that fugitive dust 
sources were the primary contributor to PM10 in New Haven 
County, with lesser contributions from on-road, non-road, area (other 
than fugitive dust), and point sources. EPA is satisfied that the 
inventory contained in the Attainment Plan and in the NEI is 
sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to meet the requirement for an 
emission inventory that can be used to demonstrate attainment of the 
NAAQS
(8) Does the LMP Include an Assurance of Continued Operation of an 
Appropriate EPA-Approved Air Quality Monitoring Network in Accordance 
With 40 CFR Part 58?
    In Section 5.0 of the Connecticut SIP submittal, the CT DEP states 
that it will continue to maintain a PM10 network to

[[Page 59662]]

verify continued compliance with the PM10 NAAQS in the New 
Haven maintenance area. Connecticut has specifically committed to 
maintaining a FEM monitor for PM10 at Criscuolo Park 
(Hearing Report in Connecticut SIP submittal, DEP Response to Comment 
3, p. 4). This site will replace the Stiles Street site about October 
2005 due to highway construction.
(9) Does the Plan Meet the Clean Air Act Requirements for Contingency 
Provisions?
    Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency measures, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation 
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to 
attainment. As explained in the Wegman memo, these contingency measures 
do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation. The New 
Haven PM10 LMP contains a Contingency Plan (Section 6.0 of 
the Connecticut SIP submittal). This plan incorporates contingency 
measures in the approved Attainment Plan (60 FR 47076) plus procedures 
that CT DEP will follow if a measured violation of the PM10 
NAAQS occurs after redesignation.
    The contingency plan would be activated in the event of a potential 
violation of the PM10 NAAQS, which under the LMP option is 
40 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual PM10 NAAQS and 98 [mu]g/m\3\ 
for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. These limits will be effective 
until five years of PM10 FEM monitoring data are available 
for the Criscuolo Park site, which is scheduled to replace the Stiles 
Street site about October 2005. When five years of data are available, 
CDVs can be calculated for the PM10 annual and 24-hour NAAQS 
for Criscuolo Park. If ADVs exceed these new CDV, the New Haven 
PM10 maintenance area would no longer qualify for the LMP 
option, and a full maintenance would be required.
    If a measured violation of the PM10 NAAQS occurs, CT DEP 
will ``immediately'' (defined as within several working days in Hearing 
Report in Connecticut SIP submittal, DEP Response to Comment 5, p. 5) 
determine the validity of data by verifying all monitor operating 
parameters and quality assurance procedures. Once the violation is 
confirmed, the CT DEP will examine all activities in the vicinity of 
the site, such as traffic patterns and meteorological conditions, and 
determine the likely cause of the violation. CT DEP will then consult 
with the appropriate local, regional or state agency to design and 
implement a control remedy.
    If the control remedy is ineffectual (i.e., another verified 
exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS occurs), CT DEP will undertake 
a full emission inventory of the area and do modeling studies to 
identify additional control measures, and to estimate future 
PM10 reductions and expected air quality at the violating 
monitor.
    EPA concludes that these measures and commitments meet the 
requirement for contingency provisions of CAA Section 175A(d).
(10) Has the State Met Conformity Requirements?
(a) Transportation Conformity
    Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially 
not constraining for the maintenance period because it is unreasonable 
to expect that qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that 
period that a NAAQS violation would result. While areas with 
maintenance plans approved under the LMP option are not subject to the 
budget test, the areas remain subject to other transportation 
conformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the 
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the area or the state will 
still need to document and ensure that: (a) Transportation plans and 
projects provide for timely implementation of SIP transportation 
control measures (TCMs) in accordance with 40 CFR 93.113; (b) 
transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal constraint 
element per 40 CFR 93.108; (c) the MPO's interagency consultation 
procedures meet applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105; (d) 
conformity of transportation plans is determined no less frequently 
than every three years, and conformity of plan amendments and 
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104; (e) the latest planning 
assumptions and emissions model are used as set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 
and 40 CFR 93.111; (6) projects do not cause or contribute to any new 
localized carbon monoxide or particulate matter violations, in 
accordance with procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and (7) project 
sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as specified in 
40 CFR 93.125.
(b) General Conformity
    As noted above, under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated 
as essentially not constraining for the maintenance period because it 
is unreasonable to expect that qualifying areas would experience so 
much growth in that period that a NAAQS violation would result. As long 
as the New Haven area qualifies for the LMP option, federal actions 
subject to the general conformity rule are considered to satisfy the 
``budget test'' specified in Sec.  93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the LMP for the New Haven PM10 
nonattainment area (New Haven NAA) in the State of Connecticut, and is 
granting a request by the State to redesignate the New Haven NAA to 
attainment for the NAAQS for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 
(PM10).
    The EPA is publishing this action 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 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
December 12, 2005 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
relevant adverse comments by November 14, 2005.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice 
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 on the proposed rule. Any parties 
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on December 12, 2005 and no further action will 
be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse 
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that 
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an 
adverse comment.

IV. 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

[[Page 59663]]

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 pre-existing 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. 104-4).
    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 is not economically 
significant.
    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. 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 December 12, 2005. 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, PM10, 
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: September 26, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Parts 52 and 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. A new Sec.  52.378 is added to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec.  52.378  Control strategy: PM10

    (a) Approval--On June 23, 2005, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a request to redesignate the City of 
New Haven PM10 nonattainment area to attainment for 
PM10. The redesignation request and the initial ten-year 
maintenance plan (2006-2015) meet the redesignation requirements in 
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, 
respectively.
    (b) Approval--On June 23, 2005, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection (CT DEP) submitted a request to establish a 
Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the City of New Haven 
PM10 attainment area for the area's initial ten-year 
maintenance plan (2006-2015). The State of Connecticut has committed 
to: maintain a PM10 monitoring network in the New Haven 
PM10 maintenance area; implement contingency measures in the 
event of an exceedance of the PM10 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the maintenance area; coordinate with EPA 
in the event the PM10 design value in the maintenance area 
exceeds 98 [mu]g/m3 for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS or 
40 [mu]g/m3 for the annual PM10 NAAQS; and to 
verify the validity of the data and, if warranted based on the data 
review, develop a full maintenance plan for the maintenance area. The 
LMP satisfies all applicable requirements of section 175A of the Clean 
Air Act. Approval of the LMP is conditioned on maintaining levels of 
ambient PM10 below a PM10 design value criteria 
of 98 [mu]g/m3 for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and 40 
[mu]g/m3 for the annual PM10 NAAQS. For the 
Criscuolo Park site, Connecticut still qualifies for the LMP option if, 
based on five years of site data, the average design values (ADVs) of 
the continuous PM10 monitor are less than the site-specific 
critical design value (CDV). If the LMP criteria are no longer 
satisfied, Connecticut must develop a full maintenance plan to meet 
Clean Air Act requirements.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  81.307, the ``Connecticut-PM-10'' table is amended by 
revising the entry for ``New Haven County City of New Haven'' to read 
as follows:


Sec.  81.307  Connecticut.

* * * * *

[[Page 59664]]



                                                                   Connecticut--PM-10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Designation                                                Classification
        Designated area         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Date                      Type                               Date                               Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Haven County City of New           12/12/05  Attainment.......................
 Haven.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-20418 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P