41004 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules

action. Louisiana will ultimately be

subject to the provisions contained in

EPA’s final conformity rule.

Nothing in today’s 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.

The Regional Administrators’

decision to approve or disapprove the

SIP revision will be based on whether

it meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(A)–(K) and part D of the Act,

as amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 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. See 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

The EPA’s proposed disapproval of

the State request under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any

preexisting Federal requirements remain

in place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the state submittal does

not affect its state-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA

certifies that this disapproval action

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements and does not impose any

new Federal requirements.

C. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as

amended 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. 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 section 804(2) of the APA as

amended.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandate Reform Act of 1995, 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 aggregate;

or to the 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. This Federal action imposes no

new requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 21, 1997.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20179 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 173–0044b; FRL–5867–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District and Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to act on

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of

two volatile organic compound (VOC)

negative declarations from the

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District for Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines and Plastic

Parts Coating: Other and six negative

declarations from the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District for

the following VOC source categories:

Industrial Wastewater, Plastic Parts

Coating: Business Machines, Plastic

Parts Coating: Other, Industrial Cleaning

Solvents, Offset Lithography, and

Shipbuilding Coatings. The intended

effect of proposing to include these

negative declarations in the SIP is to

meet the requirements of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act). In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is acting on

the state’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A rationale for this

action is set forth in the direct final rule.

If no adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by

September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Julie A.

Rose, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the negative declarations are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office and at the following

locations during normal business hours.

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Air Docket (6102), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 40l ‘‘M’’ Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, 8411 Jackson

Road, Sacramento, CA 95826

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, Agency, 26 Castilian

Drive, B–23, Goleta, CA 93117.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

A. Rose, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Proposed Rules 41005

1 53 FR 35412 (September 13, 1988)

Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901 Telephone:

(415) 744–1184

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns negative

declarations for VOC source categories

from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District

(SMAQMD) and the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District

(SBCAPCD). On June 6, 1996, the

SMAQMD submitted two negative

declarations for the following VOC

source categories: Plastic Parts Coating:

Business Machines and Plastic Parts

Coating: Other. On July 12, 1996, the

SBCAPCD submitted six negative

declarations for the following VOC

source categories: Industrial

Wastewater, Plastic Parts: Business

Machines, Plastic Parts: Other,

Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset

Lithography, and Shipbuilding Coating.

These negative declarations confirm that

the respective source categories are not

present in the SMAQMD or the

SBCAPCD. The negative declarations

were submitted to EPA by the California

Air Resources Board as revisions to the

SIP on the dates indicated.

For further information, please see the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 16, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20218 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5862–8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Proposed Removal

of Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is proposing repeal of the

exclusion that appears in the final rule

published at 56 FR 67197 (December 30,

1991) regarding a delisting granted to

Reynolds Metals Company (Reynolds),

Gum Springs, Arkansas. The exclusion

granted to Reynolds on December 30,

1991, was to exclude (or delist), certain

solid wastes (i.e., kiln residue from

treatment of spent potliner from primary

aluminum reduction) generated at

Reynolds’ facility from the lists of

hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR

261.24, 40 CFR 261.31, 40 CFR 261.32

and 40 CFR 261.33 (hereinafter all

sectional references are to 40 CFR

unless otherwise indicated). This

proposed decision to repeal the

exclusion is based on an evaluation of

waste-specific information provided by

Reynolds and obtained by EPA either

independently or from the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology (ADPC&E) subsequent to the

promulgation of the exclusion. If this

proposed decision is finalized, all future

waste generated at Reynold’s Gum

Springs, Arkansas facility will no longer

be excluded from the requirements of

hazardous waste regulations under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) and must be handled as

hazardous waste in accordance with 40

CFR parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273

as well as any permitting standards of

40 CFR part 270.

DATES: The EPA is requesting public

comments on this proposed decision.

Comments will be accepted until

September 2, 1997. Comments

postmarked after the close of the

comment period will be stamped ‘‘late’’,

and will not be considered in

formulating a final decision.

Any person may request a hearing on

this proposed decision by filing a

request by August 15, 1997. The request

must contain the information prescribed

in § 260.20(d).

ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your

comments. Two copies should be sent to

William Gallagher, Delisting Program,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division (6PD–O), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third

copy should be sent to the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock,

Arkansas 72209–8913. Identify your

comments at the top with this regulatory

docket number: F–97–ARDEL–

REYNOLDS. Requests for a hearing

should also be addressed to William

Gallagher.

The RCRA regulatory docket for this

proposed rule is located at Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202 and

is available for viewing in the EPA

library on the 12th floor from 8:30 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)

665–6444 for appointments. The docket

may also be viewed at the Arkansas

Department of Pollution Control and

Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little

Rock, Arkansas 72209. The public may

copy material from any regulatory

docket at no cost for the first 100 pages,

and at $0.15 per page for additional

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

notice, contact William Gallagher,

Delisting Program (6PD–O), Region 6,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, (214)

665–6775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. ‘‘Delisting’’, in General

On January 16, 1981, as part of its

final and interim final regulations

implementing section 3001 of RCRA,

the EPA published an amended list of

hazardous wastes from nonspecific and

specific sources. This list has been

amended several times, and is

published in §§ 261.31, 261.32 and

261.33. These wastes are listed as

hazardous because they typically and

frequently exhibit one or more of the

characteristics of hazardous wastes

identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e.,

ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and

toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing

contained in § 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).

In 1988,1 the Agency determined that

spent potliners are a solid waste that

may pose a substantial present or

potential hazard to human health or the

environment when improperly

transported, treated, stored, disposed of,

or otherwise managed. It was

determined that spent potliners contain

toxic constituents that are mobile and/

or persistent in the environment. Spent

potliners were originally listed as

hazardous waste because: (1) Spent

potliners contain significant amounts of

iron cyanide complexes and free

cyanide, both of which EPA detected in

spent potliners in significant

concentrations; (2) free cyanide is

extremely toxic to both humans and

aquatic life if ingested; (3) available data

indicated that significant amounts of

free cyanide and iron cyanide will leach

from potliners if spent potliners are

stored or disposed in unprotected piles

outdoors and are exposed to rain water;

(4) damage incidents have been reported

that are attributable to improper

disposal of spent potliners,

demonstrating migration, mobility, and

persistence of waste constituents and

demonstrating that substantial hazard

can result from improper management

of this waste; and (5) generation of large

quantities of the waste increases the