49152 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 the approval

action promulgated 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.

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 interim

final determination regarding the

Commonwealth of Virginia I/M SIP is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

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 November 18,

1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration

by the Administrator of this interim

final determination of Virginia’s

enhanced I/M SIP 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) of the Administrative

Procedures Act).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2450 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraphs

(b)(1), paragraph (b)(2), and the first

sentence of paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2450 Conditional Approval.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The Commonwealth must perform

and submit the new modeling

demonstration that illustrates how its

program will meet the relevant

enhanced performance standard by June

16, 1998. * * *

(2) The Commonwealth must submit

to EPA as a SIP amendment, by June 16,

1998, the final Virginia I/M regulation

which requires a METT-based

evaluation be performed on 0.1% of the

subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR

51.353(c)(3) and which meets all other

program evaluation elements specified

in 40 CFR 51.353(c), including a

program evaluation schedule, a protocol

for the testing, and a system for

collection and analysis of program

evaluation data.

(3) By June 16, 1998, Virginia must

adopt and submit a final Virginia I/M

regulation which requires and which

specifies detailed, approvable test

procedures and equipment

specifications for all of the evaporative

and exhaust tests to be used in the

enhanced I/M program. * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–24945 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–21–1–7345a; FRL–5894–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan: Employee

Commute Options (Employer Trip

Reduction) Program for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

removing the Texas Employee Commute

Options (ECO) rule from the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Texas for the

purpose of establishing an ECO program

(also known as the Employer Trip

Reduction (ETR) program). This action

relieves the State from mandatory

implementation of the ECO program in

the Houston-Galveston ozone

nonattainment area. The authority for

this removal action is based on Public

Law 104–70 and the subsequent EPA

policy issued on April 23, 1996. This

legislation allows the states to remove

such provisions from the SIP, or

withdraw their submission, if the state

notifies the Administrator, in writing,

that the state has undertaken, or will

undertake, one or more alternative

methods that will achieve emission

reductions equivalent to those to be

achieved by the removed or withdrawn

provisions.

DATES: This action is effective on

November 18, 1997, unless adverse or

critical comments concerning this

action are submitted and postmarked by

October 20, 1997. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted to Mr. J. Behnam, P.E., Air

Planning Section (6PDL), Environmental

Protection Agency,Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Copies of the State ECO withdrawal

request are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following locations. Interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

Air Planning Section (6PDL),

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone:

(214) 665–7214.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49153

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12124 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

J. Behnam, P.E., Air Planning Section

(6PDL), Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone

(214) 665–7247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Implementation of the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act (the Act)

required employers with 100 or more

employees in the Houston-Galveston

ozone nonattainment area to participate

in a trip reduction program. Section

182(d)(1)(B) required that employers

submit ETR compliance plans to the

State two years after the SIP is

submitted to the EPA. These compliance

plans were intended to ‘‘convincingly

demonstrate’’ that within four years

after the SIP is submitted, the employer

will achieve an increase in the average

passenger occupancy of its employees

who commute to work during the peak

period by not less than 25 percent above

the average vehicle occupancy of the

nonattainment area.

On November 13, 1992, the Governor

of Texas submitted a SIP revision for

approval of the ECO regulation which

was adopted by the State on October 16,

1992. On October 18, 1993, EPA

proposed approval of the Texas ECO SIP

in the Federal Register (FR) because it

met the requirements of section

182(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The EPA issued

its final approval of the original Texas

ECO SIP revision in a Federal Register

action on March 7, 1995.

Public Law 104–70 allows states to

remove provisions for ECO programs

from their SIPs. The state must notify

the appropriate EPA Regional

Administrator, in writing, that it will

exercise this option and will use

alternative methods to achieve emission

reductions equivalent to those which

would be achieved in the ECO program.

The April 23, 1996, EPA policy

memorandum specifies that the state’s

letter requesting removal of its ECO

program from an approved SIP must

include an estimate of the emission

reductions to have been provided by the

ECO program and explain the basis for

this estimate. Also, the state is required

to give the estimated emission reduction

from the state’s substitute measures to

be used in place of its ECO program.

II. State Submission and EPA

Evaluation

Pursuant to section 182(d)(1)(B) of the

Act, the SIP was submitted by Texas to

satisfy the statutory mandate that an

ECO Program be established for

employers with 100 or more employees,

such that compliance plans developed

by such employers are designed to

convincingly demonstrate an increase in

the average passenger occupancy of

their employees who commute to work

during the peak period, by no less than

25 percent above the average vehicle

occupancy of the nonattainment area. In

a letter dated September 23, 1996,

Governor George W. Bush requested

removal of the ECO provisions from the

SIP. This request was based on Public

Law 104–70, signed by President

Clinton on December 23, 1995, which

amended the 1990 Clean Air Act so that

previously mandated ECO programs are

now at the option of the states. The

removal of the ECO SIP revision and the

associated ECO plan submission date

depends on identifying equivalent

emissions reductions.

The State’s request for removal of the

ECO program indicated that the State

would use the emission reductions from

its motor vehicle inspection/

maintenance (I/M) program, called

Texas Motorist’s Choice (TMC), as the

emission offset. The reductions

produced by the I/M program were to

offset the volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission reductions attributed to

the ECO program in the 15 percent and

9 percent rate-of-progress (ROP) SIP

revisions for the Houston/Galveston

ozone nonattainment area. According to

the State’s modeling, the TMC program

would have produced excess emission

reductions of 8.30 tons per day in 1996

for the 15 percent ROP SIP and 10.52

tons per day in 1999 for the 9 percent

ROP SIP. These reductions were

intended to offset the 1.81 tons per day

and 1.02 tons per day, respectively,

which were claimed in the original ROP

SIPs for the ECO program. However, the

I/M rule (60 FR 48029) allows the State

flexibility to design an I/M program that

would meet the EPA’s mandated low

enhanced performance standards. The

TMC I/M program meets the I/M flexible

rule and is the federally mandated

program for the State of Texas. Use of

the excess emissions credits from the

TMC I/M program is not consistent with

EPA’s interpretation of the I/M rule. The

I/M rule at 40 CFR 51.351(g) entitled

‘‘Alternate Low Enhanced I/M

Performance Standard’’ (60 FR 48035)

specifies as a requirement that in order

to be eligible for the low enhanced

program, this program must provide

sufficient reduction to allow for

approval of the State’s 15 and 9 percent

SIPs. The Texas’ 15 and 9 percent SIPs

take emissions credits for the TMC I/M

program, and therefore, there is no

excess emissions from the TMC I/M

program to offset the emissions

reductions claimed for the ECO program

in the original 15 and 9 percent ROP

SIPs.

Subsequently, EPA conferred with the

State to clarify the Texas emission offset

approach. The State submitted a letter

(received on March 28, 1997) which

clarified the State emissions offset

approach in the ROP SIPs. Based on this

clarification, the State’s offset for

emissions reductions from the ECO

program will come from the total excess

emissions reductions identified from all

control measures in the 15 percent and

9 percent ROP SIPs (23.73 tons per day

and 10.69 tons per day, respectively).

These reductions offset the ECO

emissions reductions of 1.81 tons per

day and 1.02 tons per day claimed in

the original 15 percent and 9 percent

ROP SIPs, respectively.

The EPA believes that it was

necessary to offset the ECO emissions by

non-federally-mandated control

measures, and emissions reductions

from the TMC I/M program, which is a

federally mandated program as

discussed above, cannot be used to

offset the emissions reductions claimed

in the original ROP SIPs. The EPA has

determined that Texas’ approach has

adequately offset the ECO emissions

reductions and meets the intended

purpose of the EPA ECO Policy

memorandum. Therefore, EPA is

removing the Texas ECO rule,

incorporated by reference, from Code of

Federal Regulations and relieves the

State of Texas from implementation of

Texas ECO program, approved on March

7, 1995.

III. Final Action

In this action, EPA is removing the

Texas ECO rule, which was submitted

by the Governor to EPA on November

13, 1992, and approved by EPA on

March 7, 1995, from the Code of Federal

Regulations. The EPA has determined

that the State of Texas has satisfied the

requirements of the EPA ECO policy by

offsetting the ECO emissions reductions

claimed in the original 15 and 9 percent

ROP SIPs by the excess emissions

reductions form non-federally-mandated

control measures.

The EPA is publishing this final

approval action without advanced

notice of proposal because EPA views

this as a noncontroversial amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this
49154 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register publication, EPA is

simultaneously proposing to approve

this SIP revision should adverse or

critical comments be filed. This action

will be effective November 18, 1997,

unless adverse or critical comments

concerning this action are submitted

and postmarked by October 20, 1997.

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 concerning this

action will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

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 on this

action, the public is advised that this

action will be effective November 18,

1997.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting, allowing, or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP 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

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the EPA

may certify that the rule will not have

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. See 46 FR

8709. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and governmental entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D of the 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, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Act, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of State

action. The Act forbids EPA from basing

its actions concerning SIPs on such

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

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated 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 preexisting 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.

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, the

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

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. Petition for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by November 18, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration of this final

rule by the Regional Administrator does

not affect the finality of this rule for

purposes of judicial review; nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, or

postpone the effectiveness of this rule.

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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: August 12, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart SS—Texas

§ 52.2270 [Amended]

2. Section 52.2270 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph

(c)(91).

[FR Doc. 97–24843 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AL–40–7142; FRL–5895–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans for the State of

Alabama

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans for the State of

Alabama—Proposed Disapproval of the

Request to Redesignate the Birmingham,

Alabama (Jefferson and Shelby Counties)

Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Area to

Attainment and the Associated Maintenance

Plan.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving the State

of Alabama’s request submitted through

the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management’s (ADEM)

to redesignate the Birmingham marginal

ozone nonattainment area (Jefferson and

Shelby Counties) to attainment and the

associated maintenance plan as a

revision to the state implementation

plan (SIP). Prior to the close of the

administrative record, EPA determined

that the area registered a violation of the

ozone national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS). As a result, the

Birmingham area no longer meets the