Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; New Haven and Fairfield Counties Second 10 Year Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24 Hour[...]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; New Haven and Fairfield Counties Second 10-Year Limited Maintenance Plan for the 2006 24-Hour PM

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever "we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose

II. Response to Comments

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

On December 14, 2009, EPA designated the New Haven-Fairfield area as nonattainment for the 2006 PM _2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Subsequently, on October 24, 2013, EPA redesignated the New Haven-Fairfield area to attainment for the 2006 PM _2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 58467). On September 27, 2024, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut (89 FR 79189). The NPRM proposed approval of the State's second, 10-year LMP for the 2006 PM _2.5 standard for the New Haven-Fairfield area. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Connecticut on May 9, 2023, and supplemented on February 21, 2024.

The New Haven-Fairfield LMP for the 2006 PM _2.5 NAAQS submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) is designed to maintain the 2006 PM _2.5 NAAQS within this area through the end of the second ten-year portion of the maintenance period. EPA is approving the plan because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA sections 110 and 175A. We are also finding the LMP to be adequate as it pertains to transportation conformity requirements. Other specific requirements of the LMP and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. One public comment was received on the NPRM.

II. Response to Comments

EPA received one comment during the comment period. The comment we received supports the final approval of the proposed action.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving the Connecticut LMP for the New Haven-Fairfield area for the 2006 24-hour PM _2.5 NAAQS as a revision to the Connecticut SIP. EPA is also finding the LMP to be adequate as it pertains to transportation conformity requirements.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• 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);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address "disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects" of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that "no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies."

CT DEEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for communities with EJ concerns.

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 action 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 January 14, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subpart H-Connecticut

[FR Doc. 2024-26329 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P