36214 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

(33) A revision to the Kansas SIP was

submitted by the Kansas Department of

Health and Environment on May 23,

1997, pertaining to fuel volatility.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) K.A.R. 28–19–79, Fuel Volatility,

effective May 2, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–17601 Filed 7–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 105–0041a; FRL–5843–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan for Yolo-Solano

Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action to approve Yolo-Solano Air

Quality Management District (District)

Rule 3.1—General Permit Requirement,

Rule 3.2—Exemptions, Rule 3.4—New

Source Review, Rule 3.14—Emission

Reduction Credits, and Rule 3.15—

Priority Reserve. EPA is approving these

rules for the purpose of meeting

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or Act) with

regard to new source review (NSR) in

areas that have not attained the national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

This approval action will incorporate

these rules into the federally approved

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

California. The rules were submitted by

the State to satisfy certain Federal

requirements for an approvable NSR

SIP. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these rules into the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas. EPA is taking this

action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

DATES: This action is effective on

September 5, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

August 6, 1997. If the effective date is

delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to Steve Ringer (AIR–3), EPA,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Copies of

the rules and EPA’s evaluation report of

each rule are available for public

inspection at EPA’s Region 9 office

during normal business hours at the

following address: Permits Office (AIR–

3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management

District, 1947 Galileo Ct., Suite 103,

Davis, CA 95616.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Ringer, (AIR–3), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. (415) 744–

1260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air

quality planning requirements for

nonattainment NSR are set out in part

D of title I of the Clean Air Act. EPA has

issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’ describing

EPA’s preliminary views on how EPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under part D, including those

State submittals containing

nonattainment NSR SIP requirements

[see 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. EPA has

also proposed regulations to implement

the changes under the 1990

Amendments in the NSR provisions in

parts C and D of Title I of the Act. [See

61 FR 38249 (July 23, 1996)]. Upon final

promulgation of those regulations, EPA

will review those NSR SIP submittals on

which it has already taken final action

to determine whether additional SIP

revisions are necessary.

I. 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) and section 110(l) of

the Act provide that each

implementation plan or revision to an

implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable

notice and public hearing. Section

172(c)(7) of the Act provides that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas shall

meet the applicable provisions of

Section 110(a)(2).

Rule 3.1 was adopted by the District

Board of Directors on February 23, 1994,

and submitted to EPA as an amendment

to the SIP on October 19, 1994. Rule 3.2

was adopted by the District on August

25, 1993, and submitted to EPA on

March 29, 1994. Rule 3.4 was adopted

by the District on December 11, 1996,

and submitted to EPA on March 26,

1997. Rules 3.14 and 3.15 were adopted

by the District on September 22, 1993,

and submitted to EPA on March 29,

1994.

EPA deemed the submittals complete

on December 1, 1994, June 3, 1994, May

14, 1997, and June 3, 1994, respectively.

EPA made its determinations of

completeness pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V.1

II. Summary of Rule Contents

The Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District submitted to EPA

for adoption into the applicable NSR

SIP Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.14, and 3.15,

which constitute the District’s new

source permitting rules. Rule 3.1

contains the District’s general

requirement that new and modifying

sources must obtain an authority to

construct (ATC) permit prior to

construction. Rule 3.2 contains a list of

exemptions from the ATC permit

requirements. Rule 3.4 contains the

District’s NSR definitions,

administrative requirements, and the

standards which a stationary source

must meet in order to obtain an ATC

permit. Rule 3.14 creates an

administrative mechanism for certifying

emission reduction credits (ERCs), and

Rule 3.15 establishes the District’s

Priority Reserve bank for ERCs.

Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.14, and 3.15

represent comprehensive revisions to

the District’s NSR permitting

regulations. These rules subsume all

elements of the District NSR rules that

are currently in the SIP, and are thus

intended to supersede District Rules 3.1,

3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,

3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 which

were approved into the SIP by EPA on

various dates between March 31, 1972

and April 17, 1989.

The District is composed of Yolo

County and part of Solano County, and

is designated as a severe ozone

nonattainment area. The District is

designated attainment for PM10, NO2,

SO2 and CO. For the detailed area

designations that apply to the District,

please refer to 40 CFR § 81.305. The

CAA air quality planning requirements

for nonattainment NSR are set out in

part D of Title I of the Act, with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 36215

implementing regulations at 40 CFR

§§ 51.160 through 51.165. EPA has

determined that the District’s submittal

satisfies these requirements.

For a more detailed description of

how the submitted Rules meet the Act’s

applicable requirements, please refer to

EPA’s technical support document

(TSD) for this action.

III. Action

EPA has evaluated Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4,

3.14, and 3.15 and has determined that

they are consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations and EPA policy. Therefore,

District Rules 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.14, and

3.15 are being approved under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a), and part

D of Title I of the Act.

IV. Administrative Review

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.

EPA is taking this action without

prior proposal in part because the

District has provided public workshops

in the development of the submitted

rules, and provided the opportunity for

public comment prior to adoption of the

submitted rules. At that time, no

significant comments were received by

the District. The Agency therefore views

this as a non-controversial 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

September 5, 1997, unless, by August 6,

1997, adverse or critical comments are

received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document 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. 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 September 5, 1997.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

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, the

Administrator certifies 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

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this

approval action does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C.804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 September 5,

1997. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, New source

review, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: June 4, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:
36216 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 129 / Monday, July 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(196)(i)(D),

(c)(202)(i)(F), (c)(245) and adding and

reserving paragraph (c)(244) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(196) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 3.2, adopted on August 25,

1993; and rules 3.14 and 3.15, adopted

on September 22, 1993.

* * * * *

(202) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 3.1, adopted on February 23,

1994.

* * * * *

(244) [Reserved]

* * * * *

(245) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on March 26, 1997, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 3.4, adopted on December 11,

1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–17599 Filed 7–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 96–149; FCC 97–222]

Implementation of the Non-Accounting

Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

Amended

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Second Order on

Reconsideration (Order) released June

24, 1997 examines the proper

interpretation of section 272(e)(4) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 (the Act). The Order

concludes that the Commission’s

original interpretation—that section

272(e)(4) imposes requirements on Bell

Operating Company (BOC) provision of

interLATA services that the BOCs are

otherwise authorized to provide—is the

only one that resolves an apparent

conflict with section 272(a) in a way

that squares with the considered policy

choice Congress made in imposing a

separate affiliate requirement for BOC

provision of in-region interLATA

services.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Choi, Attorney, Common Carrier

Bureau, Policy and Program Planning

Division, (202) 418–1580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order

adopted June 20, 1997, and released

June 24, 1997. The full text of this Order

is available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St., N.W.,

Room 239, Washington, D.C. The

complete text also may be obtained

through the World Wide Web, at http:/

/www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common

Carrier/Orders/fcc97–222.wp, or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

St., N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.

20037.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification

The changes adopted in this Order do

not affect our certification in the First

Report and Order (62 FR 2927 (January

21, 1997)).

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

I. Introduction and Summary

1. In the Non-Accounting Safeguards

First Report and Order, released on

December 24, 1996, the Commission

implemented the non-accounting

safeguards provisions of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended by the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 (Communications Act).

These provisions generally prescribe the

manner in which the Bell Operating

Companies (BOCs) may enter certain

new markets, including the in-region

interLATA services market. In this

Second Order on Reconsideration, we

examine in greater depth the proper

interpretation of one of these provisions,

section 272(e)(4).

2. The BOCs’ interpretation—that

section 272(e)(4) is an affirmative grant

of authority allowing a BOC to provide

directly (i.e., not through a separate

affiliate) in-region interLATA services

on a wholesale basis—presents an

apparent conflict with section 272(a),

which, in relevant part, prohibits a BOC

from doing precisely this. Such conflict

is only heightened by the requirement

in section 272(b)(1) that a BOC and its

separate affiliate must ‘‘operate

independently,’’ which, as explained

below, presupposes that the BOC may

not provide any in-region interLATA

services directly.

3. Confronting this apparent conflict,

we conclude that our original

interpretation—that section 272(e)(4)

imposes requirements on BOC provision

of interLATA services that the BOCs are

otherwise authorized to provide—is the

only one that resolves the conflict in a

way that squares with the considered

policy choice Congress made in

imposing a separate affiliate

requirement for BOC provision of inregion interLATA services. In the past,

where courts and agencies have chosen

to impose separate affiliate requirements

on the BOCs for competitive services

requiring local BOC facilities as an

input, the defining feature of such

requirements has always been a

prohibition on providing such services

on an end-to-end physically integrated

basis, and for an obvious reason. It is

precisely the provision of such services

on an end-to-end physically integrated

basis that gives rise to the concerns that

separate affiliate requirements are

intended to address. Our original

interpretation of section 272(e)(4)

preserves this essential prohibition,

while the BOCs’ interpretation, under

which section 272(e)(4) is a grant of

authority, eviscerates it. Our

interpretation is bolstered by our view

that it is exceedingly unlikely that

Congress would have tucked away a

fundamental grant of authority in

section 272(e), which imposes

obligations on the BOCs in response to

requests from unaffiliated carriers. The

thrust of section 272 is likewise to limit,

not expand, BOC authority.

II. Statutory Framework

4. BOC entry into the in-region

interLATA services market is governed

by sections 271 and 272 of the

Communications Act. Section 271(a)

states that neither a BOC nor an affiliate

‘‘may provide interLATA services

except as provided in this section.’’

Section 271(b) grants immediate

authorization to a BOC or its affiliate to

provide interLATA services originating

outside of the BOC’s in-region states

(‘‘out-of-region’’ interLATA services)

and to provide six specified

‘‘incidental’’ interLATA services.

Section 271(f) explains that the

prohibition in section 271(a) does not

apply to any activities ‘‘previously