55544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Boeing: Amendment 39– . Docket 96–NM–

12–AD.

Applicability: Model 757 series airplanes;

equipped with ram air turbine (RAT)

deployment actuators having Boeing part

number (P/N) S271N102–4 (Arkwin P/N

1211233–004) or Boeing P/N S271N102–5

(Arkwin P/N 1211233–005), and having a

serial number of 00001 and subsequent;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent the failure of the actuators used

to deploy the ram air turbine (RAT),

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 120 days after the effective date

of this AD, revise the FAA-approved

maintenance program to require verification

that the shipping container and shipping

sleeve assembly, as specified in Arkwin

Industries Service Bulletin 1211233–29–21–

4, Revision 3, dated February 7, 1997, was

used in shipping the actuator to a location

where it is to be installed.

Note 2: Once the maintenance program has

been revised to include the procedures

specified in this paragraph, operators are not

required to subsequently record

accomplishment each time that an actuator is

shipped.

(b) Within 30 months after the effective

date of this AD, inspect the identification

plate on the deployment actuator of the RAT

to determine the actuator serial numbers, in

accordance with Arkwin Industries Service

Bulletin 1211233–29–21–3, Revision 2, dated

June 17, 1994, or Revision 3, dated February

7, 1997.

(1) If the actuator bears Boeing part number

(P/N) S271N102–4 (Arkwin P/N 1211233–

004) or Boeing P/N S271N102–5 (Arkwin P/

N 1211233–005), and has a serial number of

00001 through 00631 inclusive (with no ‘‘B’’

suffix): Prior to further flight, remove the

RAT deployment actuator and repair or

replace it, in accordance with the Arkwin

Industries service bulletins previously

referenced in paragraph (b) of this AD or in

accordance with a method approved by the

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office

(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.

Note 3: Arkwin Industries Service Bulletin

1211233–29–21–3, Revision 2, dated June 17,

1994, or Revision 3, dated February 7, 1997,

recommends that the actuator unit be

returned to Arkwin Industries for

modification, since specialized equipment is

needed to perform the rework of the unit.

However, any FAA-approved facility may

modify the unit, provided that it has the

appropriate equipment to successfully

modify and test the unit in accordance with

a method approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO, or in accordance with the Arkwin

Industries service bulletins referenced in

paragraph (b) of this AD.

(2) Prior to further flight, remove the RAT

deployment actuator and repair or replace it,

in accordance with Arkwin Industries

Service Bulletin 1211233–29–21–3, Revision

2, dated June 17, 1994, or Revision 3, dated

February 7, 1997, if the actuator:

(i) Has Boeing P/N S271N102–4 (Arkwin P/

N 1211233–004) or Boeing P/N S271N102–5

(Arkwin P/N 1211233–005); and

(ii) Has a serial number of 00001 through

00631 inclusive, with a suffix letter ‘‘B;’’ or

has a serial number of 00632 or subsequent;

and

(iii) Has been removed previously from an

airplane and shipped in the extended

position and not in accordance with Arkwin

Industries Service Bulletin 1211233–29–21–

4, Revision 2, dated June 17, 1994, or

Revision 3, dated February 7, 1997.

Note 4: Shipping records or tags may be

reviewed to determine whether the actuator

was shipped in accordance with Arkwin

Industries Service Bulletin 1211233–29–21–

4, Revision 2 or Revision 3.

Note 5: Arkwin Industries Service Bulletin

1211233–29–21–4, Revision 2 or Revision 3,

provide procedures for proper identification

of the necessary reusable shipping container

and shipping sleeve assembly that is to be

used when transporting or shipping the RAT

deployment actuator assembly. Use of this

container and sleeve will prevent damage to

the assembly during shipping.

(3) No further action is required by

paragraph (b) of this AD, if the actuator:

(i) Has Boeing P/N S271N102–4 (Arkwin P/

N 1211233–004) or Boeing P/N S271N102–5

(Arkwin P/N 1211233–005); and

(ii) Has a serial number of 00001 through

00631 inclusive, with a suffix letter ‘‘B;’’ or

has a serial number of 00632 or subsequent;

and

(iii) Has not been removed previously from

an airplane, or has been removed and

shipped in the extended position, in

accordance with Arkwin Industries Service

Bulletin 1211233–29–21–4, Revision 2, dated

June 17, 1994, or Revision 3, dated February

7, 1997.

(c) As of 30 months after the effective date

of this AD, no person shall install on any

airplane a RAT deployment actuator

assembly, having Boeing P/N S271N102–4

(Arkwin P/N 1211233–004) or Boeing P/N

S271N102–5 (Arkwin P/N 1211233–005), and

having serial number 00001 and subsequent;

unless the conditions, as specified in both

paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD apply:

(1) The actuator assembly has been

modified (repaired and reidentified) in

accordance with Arkwin Industries Service

Bulletin 1211233–29–21–3, Revision 2, dated

June 17, 1994, or Revision 3, dated February

7, 1997; or the actuator is replaced with a

new actuator from Arkwin Industries, Inc.;

and

(2) Prior to installation, the actuator was

shipped (i.e., to the place where installation

is accomplished) in accordance with Arkwin

Industries Service Bulletin 1211233–29–21–

4, Revision 2, dated June 17, 1994, or

Revision 3, dated February 7, 1997.

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

ACO. Operators shall submit their requests

through an appropriate FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Seattle ACO.

Note 6: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

20, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28318 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NH–7157b; FRL–5906–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing action

on State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of New

Hampshire. The EPA is proposing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55545

approval of New Hampshire’s 1990 base

year ozone emission inventories, 15

Percent Rate of Progress (ROP) and

Contingency plans, and establishment of

a Photochemical Assessment

Monitoring Stations (PAMS) network, as

revisions to the New Hampshire SIP for

ozone. The inventory was submitted by

the State of New Hampshire to satisfy a

CAA requirement that those States

containing ozone nonattainment areas

classified as marginal to extreme submit

inventories of actual ozone season

emissions from all sources in

accordance with EPA guidance. The

15% ROP and contingency plans were

submitted to satisfy CAA provisions that

require ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above to

devise plans to reduce VOC emissions

by 1996 when compared to a 1990

baseline. The PAMS SIP revision was

submitted to provide for the

establishment and maintenance of an

enhanced ambient air quality

monitoring network by November 15,

1993.

In the final rules section of today’s

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the New Hampshire 1990 base year

emission inventories and PAMS

network as revisions to the New

Hampshire SIP as a direct final rule

without prior proposal, because the

Agency views these as noncontroversial

revision amendments and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for each approval is set forth in the

direct final rule. The EPA is not

publishing a direct final rule for the

New Hampshire 15 percent ROP and

contingency plans. If no adverse

comments are received on this direct

final rule, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule for these revisions. If EPA

receives any material 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: Public comments on this

document are requested and will be

considered before taking final action on

this SIP revision. Comments on this

proposed action must be post marked by

November 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Susan

Studlien, Deputy Director, Office of

Ecosystem Protection, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the EPA

Region I office, and at the New

Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, Air Resources

Division, 64 North Main Street, Caller

Box 2033, Concord, NH 03302–2033.

Persons interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. McConnell, Air Quality

Planning Unit, EPA Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02203; telephone (617)

565–9266.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

supplementary information regarding

the New Hampshire 1990 base year

emission inventories or establishment of

a PAMS network, see the information

provided in the direct final action of the

same title which is located in the rules

section of today’s Federal Register.

This notice is divided into the

following four parts:

I. Background

II. Analysis of State Submission

III. Proposed Action

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA as

amended in 1990 requires ozone

nonattainment areas with classifications

of moderate and above to develop plans

to reduce area-wide anthropogenic VOC

emissions by 15 percent from a 1990

baseline. The plans were to be

submitted by November 15, 1993 and

the reductions were required to be

achieved within 6 years of enactment or

November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act

also sets limitations on the creditability

of certain types of reductions.

Specifically, States cannot take credit

for reductions achieved by Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP) measures (new car emissions

standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or

for reductions resulting from

requirements to lower the Reid Vapor

Pressure (RVP) of gasoline promulgated

prior to 1990. Furthermore, the CAA

does not allow credit for corrections to

basic Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Programs (I/M) or

corrections to Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) rules as

these programs were required prior to

1990.

In addition, section 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the CAA requires that

contingency measures be included in

the plan revision to be implemented if

an area misses an ozone SIP milestone,

or fails to attain the standard by the date

required by the CAA.

There are two serious ozone

nonattainment areas in New Hampshire,

and therefore the State is subject to the

15 Percent ROP requirements. The two

areas are the Portsmouth-DoverRochester area, which includes all of

Strafford County and portions of

Rockingham County, and the New

Hampshire portion of the BostonLawrence-Worcester area which

includes portions of Hillsborough and

Rockingham Counties. New Hampshire

did not enter into an agreement with

Massachusetts to do a multi-state 15

percent and contingency plan, and

therefore submitted a plan to reduce

emissions only in the New Hampshire

portion of this area. EPA is taking action

today only on the New Hampshire

portion of the Boston-LawrenceWorcester 15 percent plan.

New Hampshire submitted a 15%

ROP plan for these two areas to the EPA

on February 3, 1994, and revisions to

the plan on May 16, 1994 and August

29, 1996. The state’s submittal

contained adopted rules for all of the

VOC control measures identified within

the plan.

II. Analysis of State Submission

The EPA has analyzed New

Hampshire’s submittal and believes that

the proposed 15 Percent ROP and

Contingency plans can be approved

because they will strengthen the SIP by

achieving reductions in VOC emissions,

and because the State has correctly

calculated its emission reduction

obligations brought about by these

requirements in accordance with the

EPA’s guidance. For a complete

discussion of EPA’s analysis of the New

Hampshire 15 Percent ROP plan and

Contingency Plan, please refer to the

Technical Support Document for this

action. A summary of the EPA’s findings

follows.

Emission Inventory

The base from which States determine

the required reductions in the 15

Percent ROP and Contingency plans is

the 1990 emission inventory. The EPA

is approving the New Hampshire 1990

emission inventories in a direct final

action included in the Rules section of

today’s Federal Register. The emission

estimates used within the 15 Percent

ROP calculations match those found in

the State’s 1990 base year emission

inventories.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

New Hampshire subtracted the noncreditable reductions from the FMVCP
55546 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

from the 1990 inventory. No adjustment

to the inventory to account for the RVP

of gasoline sold in the state in 1990 was

necessary. The modification to subtract

non-creditable reductions from the

FMVCP results in the 1990 adjusted

inventory. The total emission reduction

required to meet the 15 Percent ROP

Plan requirements equals the sum of the

following items: 15 percent of the

adjusted inventory, reductions that

occur from noncreditable programs such

as the FMVCP program, reductions

needed to offset any growth in

emissions that takes place between 1990

and 1996, and reductions that result

from corrections to the I/M or VOC

RACT rules. Table 1 summarizes these

calculations for the two serious ozone

nonattainment areas in New Hampshire.

TABLE 1.—CALCULATION OF REQUIRED

REDUCTIONS (TONS/SUMMER DAY)

PorDov-Roc

BosLawWor

1990 Anthropogenic

Emission Inventory .... 41.0 55.9

1990 Adjusted Inventory 35.6 48.0

15% of Adjusted Inventory ............................. 5.3 7.2

Non-creditable Reductions ........................... 5.4 7.9

1996 Target ................... 30.3 40.8

1996 1 Projected, Uncontrolled Emissions 37.4 52.7

Required Reduction 2 .... 7.1 11.9

1 1996 emissions for on-road mobile sources

were calculated using an emission factor that

reflected the level of control achieved by the

FMVCP in 1996. 2 Required Reductions obtained by subtracting 1996 target from the 1996 projected uncontrolled inventory.

Measures Achieving the Projected

Reductions

New Hampshire has provided a plan

to achieve the emissions reductions

required for the Portsmouth-DoverRochester nonattainment area and the

New Hampshire portion of the BostonLawrence-Worcester nonattainment

area. The EPA agrees with the emission

reductions projected in the State

submittals from the control measures

identified within these plans. The

following is a description of each

control measure New Hampshire used

to achieve emission reduction credit

within its 15% ROP plans.

A. Point Source Emission Reductions

RACT Controls. New Hampshire

projects that a 2.1 tons per summer day

(tpsd) emission reduction will occur

within the Por-Dov-Roc area, and a 2.6

tpsd emission reduction will occur

within the Bos-Law-Wor area from the

implementation of VOC Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

on point sources, and from plant

shutdowns.

Section 182(b)(2)(B) of the CAA

requires that moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas adopt rules to

require RACT for all VOC sources in the

area covered by any Control Technique

Guideline (CTG) issued before the date

of the enactment of the Clean Air Act

amendments of 1990. New Hampshire

imposed new RACT controls on

facilities involved in the processes

covered by a CTG to meet this

requirement {these controls are referred

to as ‘‘RACT Catchups’’}.

New Hampshire submitted VOC

RACT catch-up regulations to the EPA

on December 21, 1992, and June 28,

1996. EPA has not acted on these rules,

but intends to by the time final action

is taken on the New Hampshire 15

percent plans. Emission reductions from

these rules are creditable toward the

ROP requirement. The State has

documented the level of emission

reductions claimed from point sources.

The State’s 15% ROP plans contain a

discussion of the emission reductions

expected from individual point sources,

and a table which lists each point

source in the State from which emission

reductions are anticipated by 1996.

While EPA agrees that these RACT rules

achieves the level of emission

reductions New Hampshire is claiming

in its 15% plan, EPA is not making any

finding in this proposal whether the

rules are otherwise consistent with all

CAA requirements.

Plant Closures: New Hampshire’s

15% plan identifies facilities that will

cease operations between 1990 and

1996. The State has used the emission

reductions generated from these plant

closures as part of its 15 percent ROP

plans. The emission reductions

generated from these plant closures

cannot, therefore, be used for other

purposes, such as to meet the emissions

offset provisions of the new source

review program or as a source of a

tradeable emission commodity.

B. Area Source Controls

Stage I: Emissions from underground

tank filling operations at gasoline

service stations can be reduced by the

use of a vapor balance system, which is

termed Stage I vapor control. New

Hampshire has adopted a Stage I

gasoline vapor recovery regulation, and

submitted the rule to the EPA as a SIP

revision. EPA has not acted on this rule,

but intends to by the time final action

is taken on the New Hampshire 15

percent plans. The data used to derive

the anticipated emission reduction from

implementation of this rule are

documented within the NH 15% ROP

plans. The EPA agrees with the level of

emission reductions projected by the

State. While EPA agrees that the Stage

I rule achieves the level of emission

reductions New Hampshire is claiming

in its 15% plan, EPA is not making any

finding in this proposal whether the

rule is otherwise consistent with all

CAA requirements.

Underground Tank Breathing: New

Hampshire’s Stage I rule contains a

requirement that a pressure vacuum

(PV) valve be installed on vents located

on underground tanks at service

stations. The EPA agrees with the

emission reductions claimed by the

State due to this provision of the Stage

I rule.

Stage II: New Hampshire has adopted

an air pollution control rule that will

limit VOC emissions from automobile

refueling activity, commonly referred to

as Stage II emissions. The rule was

submitted to the EPA on December 21,

1992. EPA has not acted on this rule,

but intends to by the time final action

is taken on the New Hampshire 15

percent plans. The EPA agrees with the

emission reduction credit claimed by

the state due to the implementation of

this program. While EPA agrees that the

Stage II rule achieves the level of

emission reductions New Hampshire is

claiming in its 15% plan, EPA is not

making any finding in this proposal

whether the rule is otherwise consistent

with all CAA requirements.

Surface Cleaning Controls: New

Hampshire adopted a VOC RACT rule

that controls emissions from open top

and cold cleaning degreasing

operations. The State determined that

area source emissions would also be

reduced by this rule, which is consistent

with EPA guidance. The emission

reductions claimed by the State from

this rule are therefore creditable towards

the 15% ROP plan.

Automobile Refinishing: On

November 29, 1994, EPA issued a final

guidance memorandum that allowed

States to assume a 37 percent control

level for this source category without

adopting a State rule due to a pending

National rule. New Hampshire used this

guidance to determine the magnitude of

emission reductions expected to occur

within its two ozone nonattainment

areas. The EPA agrees with the level of

emission reductions projected by the

State.

Commercial and Consumer Products:

On June 22, 1995, EPA issued a final

guidance memorandum that allowed

States to assume a 0.8 pound per capita

emission reduction for this source

category without adopting a State rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55547

due to a pending National rule. New

Hampshire used this guidance to

determine the magnitude of emission

reductions expected to occur within its

two ozone nonattainment areas. The

EPA agrees with the level of emission

reductions projected by the State.

Architectural Coatings: In a memo

dated March 22, 1995, EPA provided

guidance on the expected reductions

from a pending national rulemaking on

AIM coatings. The memo projects that

emissions would be reduced by 20

percent for both architectural coatings

and industrial maintenance coatings.

New Hampshire used this guidance to

determine the magnitude of emission

reductions expected to occur within its

two ozone nonattainment areas. The

EPA agrees with the level of emission

reductions projected by the State.

(C) On-Road Mobile Source Controls

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG): Section

211(k) of the Clean Air Act requires that

after January 1, 1995 in severe and

above ozone nonattainment areas, only

reformulated gasoline be sold or

dispensed. This gasoline is reformulated

to burn cleaner and produce fewer

evaporative emissions. The state of New

Hampshire contains two ‘‘serious’’

ozone nonattainment areas and one

‘‘marginal’’ area, and therefore is not

required to sell reformulated fuels.

However, on October 28, 1991 the State

submitted a letter from the Governor

requesting that New Hampshire

participate in the reformulated fuels

program. This request was published in

the Federal Register on December 23,

1991, 56 FR 66444. The EPA agrees with

the emission reductions calculated by

the state due to the use of reformulated

gasoline in on-road vehicles.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control

Program (FMVCP): The EPA

promulgated standards for 1994 and

later model year light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724, June 5,

1991). Since the standards were adopted

after the CAA amendments of 1990, the

resulting emission reductions are

creditable toward the 15 percent

emission reduction goal. The EPA

agrees with the emission reductions

calculated by New Hampshire due to

the Tier I motor vehicle controls.

Non-road mobile source controls: As

previously discussed, New Hampshire

has opted in to the reformulated

gasoline program. In addition to

reducing VOC emissions from on-road

motor vehicles, the sale of this gasoline

will also reduce VOC emissions from

non-road equipment. The EPA agrees

with the emission reductions projected

by New Hampshire to occur due to the

sale of reformulated gasoline in the

state.

Table 2 summarizes the emission

reductions contained within the New

Hampshire 15% ROP plan. New

Hampshire allocated between the two

nonattainment areas the anticipated

reductions from control measures using

the same methodology that determined

the allocation of its 1990 base year

inventory emissions.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS: NEW HAMPSHIRE SERIOUS OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS

(Tons/Day)

Nonattainment area Por-DovRoc

BosLawWor

Required Reduction .. 7.10 11.90

Point Source Reductions ....................... 2.10 2.60

Stage I ....................... 1.25 2.09

Stage II ...................... 1.28 2.14

Underground Tank

Breathing ............... 0.11 0.18

Surface Cleaning ...... 0.30 0.50

Auto Refinishing ........ 0.41 0.69

Consumer & Com.

Prod. ...................... 0.19 0.32

Architectural Coatings 0.38 0.63

Reform (On-road),

Tier 1 ..................... 2.60 3.90

Reform, Off-road ....... 0.20 0.20

Total ............... 8.82 13.25

Contingency Measures: Ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

moderate or above must submit to the

EPA, pursuant to section 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency

measures to be implemented if an area

misses an ozone SIP milestone or does

not attain the national ambient air

quality standard by the applicable date.

The General Preamble to Title I, (57 FR

13498) states that the contingency

measures should, at a minimum, ensure

that an appropriate level of emission

reduction progress continues to be made

if attainment or RFP is not achieved and

additional planning by the State is

needed. The EPA interprets this

provision of the CAA to require States

with moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas to submit sufficient

contingency measures so that upon

implementation of such measures,

additional emission reductions of three

percent of the adjusted base year

inventory (or a lesser percentage that

will make up the identified shortfall)

would be achieved in the year after the

failure has been identified. States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions such as

public hearings or legislative review.

Surplus Emission Reduction from 15

Percent Plan: New Hampshire’s 15

percent ROP plans achieve more

emission reductions than required. This

is illustrated within Table 2 above. New

Hampshire’s contingency obligations for

its two ozone nonattainment areas are

1.1 tpsd for the Por-Dov-Roc area, and

1.4 tpsd for the New Hampshire portion

of the Bos-Law-Wor area. The surplus

credit generated by the control measures

in the 15 Percent ROP plans is sufficient

to accommodate the 3 percent emission

reduction requirement for contingency

plans for the State’s two serious ozone

nonattainment areas. EPA notes that the

State’s SIP indicates that a 0.1 tpsd

surplus exists in the New Hampshire

portion of the Bos-Law-Wor area after

accounting for contingency reductions.

However, the data presented in Table 2

indicates a minor shortfall of 0.05 exists

after accounting for the 1.4 tpsd

contingency obligation for this area.

Given the large number of inventory and

emission reduction calculations used to

derive the data provided in Table 2,

EPA considers the minor shortfall of

0.05 tpsd to be within an acceptable

range of error. EPA proposes to

determine that New Hampshire has met

the contingency measure requirement

for both of its nonattainment areas.

III. Proposed Action

The EPA has evaluated these

submittals for consistency with the

CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

The New Hampshire 15 Percent ROP

plans will achieve the required quantity

of emission reductions to meet the 15

percent ROP requirements of section

182(b)(1) of the CAA. In addition, the

New Hampshire contingency plan will

achieve enough emission reductions to

meet the three percent reduction

requirement under 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the CAA. Therefore, the

EPA is proposing approval of these plan

revisions under Section 110(k)(3) and

Part D.

Transportation Conformity Budgets

In recognition of the proposed

approval of the 15 percent ROP plans,

EPA also proposes approval of motor

vehicle emission budgets for VOCs and

NOX. Final approval of the 15 percent

plan will eliminate the need for the

transportation conformity emission

reduction tests, which are the build/no

build test and the less than 1990

emissions test, for these pollutants.

A control strategy SIP is required to

establish a motor vehicle emission

budget which places a cap on emissions

that cannot be exceeded by predicted
55548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Proposed Rules

highway and transit vehicle emissions.

EPA is proposing to utilize the on-road

mobile emissions provided in the 15

percent plan SIP submittals as the motor

vehicle emission budgets for

transportation conformity purposes. The

1996 projected on-road mobile emission

estimates contained within the State’s

15 percent plans are shown in the

following table:

TABLE 3.—1996 MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSION BUDGETS

PorDov-Roc

area

NH portion of

BosLawWor

area

VOC .............................. 12.1 18.0

NOX ............................... 17.2 24.1

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this proposal or

on other relevant matters. These

comments will be considered before

EPA takes final action. Interested parties

may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this action.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, in relation to relevant statutory

and regulatory requirements.

IV. 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 review under

Executive Order 12866.

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-forprofit 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 Sections 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671–q.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–28370 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

[CGD 94–055]

RIN 2115–AF23

Licensing and Manning for Officers of

Towing Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard revises the

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

published on June 19, 1996, proposing

requirements for licensing mariners who

operate towing vessels, inspected as

well as uninspected. This supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)

addresses the numerous comments

received in response to the NPRM. It

should improve the clarify those

requirement proposed in the NPRM.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before February 24, 1998.

Comments sent to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on

collection of information must reach

OMB on or before December 26, 1997.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 94–055),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or deliver them to room

3406 at the same address between 9:30

a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is 202–267–1477.

You must also mail comments to

collection of information to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget, 725

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,

ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments, and documents as indicated

in this preamble, will become part of the

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Don Darcy, Office of Operating

and Environmental Standards (G–MSO),

(202) 267–0221.