Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 42087

disapproval should the State make the

enhanced I/M program a voluntary

measure.

EPA and the Maryland Department of

the Environment have worked closely

since the July 1995 submittal to resolve

all the issues necessary to fully approve

the 15% plan. Maryland is aware of the

above deficiencies and has addressed

many of the above-named deficiencies

in the draft revised plan. Maryland has

stated that it intends to submit

additional information to address all

deficiencies within the 15% plan.

Therefore, while some deficiencies

currently remain in the 15% plan, EPA

believes that these issues will be

resolved no later than 12 months after

EPA’s final conditional approval. EPA

will consider all information submitted

as a supplement or amendment to the

July 1995 submittal prior to any final

rulemaking action.

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under section 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, EPA

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

Act, 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).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing State

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the State

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new federal

requirement.

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 the approval

action proposed 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

The Regional Administrator’s

decision to approve or disapprove the

SIP revision pertaining to the Maryland

15% plan for the Baltimore area will be

based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(a)-(K)

and part D of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–20575 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–150–9711b; FRL–5866–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Tennessee:

Approval of Revisions to Maintenance

Plan for Knox County, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Tennessee for the purpose of revising

the Ozone Maintenance plan and

emission projections for Knox County.

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving 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 detailed rationale

for the approval 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 proposed 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

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Benjamin

Franco at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file TN150–01–9711. The

Region 4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.
42088 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Benjamin Franco, (404) 562–

9039.

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, Division of Air

Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th

Floor, 401 Church Street, Nashville,

Tennessee 37243–1531. Telephone:

(615)-532–0554.

Knox County Department of Air

Pollution Control, City-County

Building, Suite 339, 400 West Main

Street, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902.

Telephone: (615) 521–2488.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benjamin Franco at 404/562–9039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: July 9, 1997.

Michael V. Payton,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20577 Filed 8–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–001–0017 and CO–001–0018; FRL–

5869–4]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of the Denver, Colorado

Mobile Source Emissions Budgets for

PM10 and NOX

AGENCY: Evironmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is requesting additional

comments on certain aspects of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for

the Denver PM10 and NOX mobile

source emissions budgets that were

submitted by the Governor of Colorado.

EPA initially proposed approval of the

SIP revisions on October 3, 1996 (61 FR

51631). During that rulemaking’s public

comment period, EPA received several

comments. Due to the complexity of the

issues, EPA is asking interested parties

to submit additional information on two

issues. This information may help EPA

make a more informed decision on the

appropriateness of approving both the

PM10 and NOX emissions budget SIPs.

DATES: Comments on this request for

additional information must be received

in writing on or before September 4,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

original PM10 and NOX emissions

budget SIPs, comments received during

the public comment period, and other

information are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, Air Program, 999 18th

Street, 3rd Floor, South Terrace, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Callie Videtich at (303) 312–6434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On July 18, 1995, and April 22, 1996,

the Colorado Governor submitted

revisions to the Denver PM10 SIP which

establish mobile source emissions

budgets for PM10 and NOX respectively.

These budgets are used under EPA

regulations for making transportation

related conformity determinations as

required by section 176(c) of the Act.

EPA’s transportation conformity rule

provides that these budgets establish a

cap on motor vehicle-related emissions

which cannot be exceeded by the

predicted transportation system

emissions in the future unless the cap

is amended by the State and approved

by EPA as a SIP revision and attainment

and maintenance of the standard can be

demonstrated.

EPA proposed approval of both

emissions budgets on October 3, 1996

(61 FR 51631) along with the Denver

PM10 SIP. Following a 60 day public

comment period, EPA finalized

approval of the Denver PM10 SIP on

April 17, 1997 (62 FR 18716). EPA did

not take final action on the emissions

budget submittals in order to more

thoroughly consider comments received

on the proposals during the public

comment period.

II. This Action

Based upon a thorough review, EPA

has concluded that additional

information is needed in order for EPA

to make an informed decision about

certain aspects of the SIPs based upon

public comments responding to our

proposed approval of the PM10 and NOX

emissions budgets. EPA is seeking

additional information on the two issues

outlined below.

1. It appears to EPA that the Colorado

legislature, through Senate Bill 95–110

(codified at section 25–7–105(1)(a)(III),

C.R.S.), changed the PM10 emissions

budgets that the Colorado Air Quality

Control Commission (AQCC) had

adopted on February 16, 1995. EPA

wishes to take comment on whether the

PM10 budgets that were ultimately

submitted to EPA for approval were

adopted after reasonable notice and

public hearing as required by section

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section

110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that

‘‘[e]ach implementation plan submitted

by a State under this Act shall be

adopted by the State after reasonable

notice and public hearing.’’ Robert

Yuhnke, on behalf of COPIRG, Colorado

Environmental Coalition, Citizens for

Balanced Transportation, American

Lung Association of Colorado,

Environmental Defense Fund, and Ms.

Stephanie Mines, and Frank Johnson, on

behalf of the Colorado Attorney

General’s Office, have submitted

information that touches on this

question. Their letters may be examined

at the address listed above. EPA wishes

to obtain further comment on this issue.

In particular, EPA is concerned that the

legislative action did not meet the

CAA’s requirements for notice and

public hearing and that no subsequent

public hearing was held before the

AQCC. The Colorado Attorney General’s

Office has suggested that hearings held

before the AQCC in September and

October 1994, and in February 1995,

were adequate to satisfy the CAA’s

hearing requirement, and that there is

no requirement that a hearing be held at

every step in the State review process.

It has also indicated that the State

legislative process is an open and public

process and that the legislators are

accountable to the electorate.

2. Commentors were concerned that

the budgets do not demonstrate

attainment considering growth in nonmobile sources, and that the adopted

NOX budget of 119.4 tons per day was

not consistent with the NOX inventory

of 102.7 tons per day used in the

maintenance demonstration. (In the

following discussion, EPA uses the

terms ‘‘mobile source’’ and ‘‘mobile

source emissions’’ to mean ‘‘motor

vehicle’’ and ‘‘motor vehicle

emissions,’’ consistent with the State’s

submittal. Neither the State’s budget

submittal nor EPA’s conformity rule

regulate emissions from non-road

mobile sources.)

The Regional Air Quality

Council’s(RAQC’s) proposal to the

AQCC to increase the emissions budget

was based on an analysis showing that

the Denver modeling region could

tolerate mobile source PM10 emissions

of 221 tons per day in 2015 before a

violation of the PM10 standard would

occur. (This analysis was not submitted

at the time the budgets were submitted

to EPA, but was referenced in