59996 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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.

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

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 section 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

this Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section

804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by January 5, 1998. 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: August 13, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, 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. 7401–7642(q).

Subpart X—Michigan

2. Section 52.1170 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)109 to read as

follows:

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(109) On December 13, 1994 and

January 19, 1996, Michigan submitted

correspondence and Executive Orders

1991–31 and 1995–18 which indicated

that the executive branch of government

had been reorganized. As a result of the

reorganization, delegation of the

Governor’s authority under the Clean

Air Act was revised. The Environmental

Protection Agency’s approval of these

Executive Orders is limited to those

provisions affecting air pollution

control. The Air Pollution Control

Commission was abolished and its

authority was initially transferred to the

Director of the Michigan Department of

Natural Resources (DNR). Subsequently,

the Michigan Department of Natural

Resources of Environmental Quality

(DEQ) was created by elevating eight

program divisions and two program

offices previously located within the

DNR. The authority then earlier vested

to the Director of the Michigan DNR was

then transferred to the Director of the

Michigan DEQ with the exception of

some administrative appeals decisions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) State of Michigan Executive Order

1991–31 Commission of Natural

Resources, Department of Natural

Resources, Michigan Department of

Natural Resources Executive

Reorganization. Introductory and

concluding words of issuance and Title

I: General; Part A: Sections 1, 2, 4 and

5, Part B. Title III: Environmental

Protection; Part A: Sections 1 and 2, Part

B. Title IV: Miscellaneous; Parts A and

B, Part C: Sections 1, 2, 4, Part D. Signed

by John Engler, Governor, November 8,

1991. Filed with the Secretary of State

November 8, 1991. Effective January 7,

1992.

(B) State of Michigan Executive Order

No. 1995–18 Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, Michigan

Department of Natural Resources

Executive Reorganization. Introductory

and concluding words of issuance.

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3(a) and (g), 4, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18. Signed by

John Engler, Governor, July 31, 1995.

Filed with the Secretary of State on

August 1, 1995. Effective September 30,

1995.

[FR Doc. 97–29395 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 091–4050a; FRL–5918–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting

amendment.

SUMMARY: This action corrects an

interim final rule, which was published

on January 28, 1997, regarding EPA

conditional approval of Pennsylvania’s

enhanced inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program. This action pertains to

the consequences in the event that the

Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program

failed to commence per the deadlines

set forth in EPA’s interim final rule.

EPA is taking this action for the

purposes of consistency with

rulemaking actions EPA has since taken

on other states’ inspection and

maintenance programs. EPA is

correcting its January 28 final rule

through a direct final rule, without prior

proposal, because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial SIP revision and

anticipates no adverse comment from

the public. A detailed description of the

correction is set forth in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section,

below. 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 a parallel

proposed rule, published elsewhere in

this Federal Register. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59997

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by December 8, 1997. If no

adverse comments to this action is

received, the action will become

effective January 5, 1998. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to David L.

Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and Mobile

Sources Section (Mailcode 3AT21), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Relevant documents are also

available at the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Resources

Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box

8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Rehn, (215) 566–2176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 28, 1997 (62 FR 4004),

EPA published an interim final rule

approving a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by

Pennsylvania for an enhanced

inspection and maintenance program for

all subject areas in the Commonwealth.

Need for Correction

As published, the direct final rule

contains an error, which may prove to

be misleading. Therefore, EPA’s action

today serves to clarify that rulemaking,

as described in the January 28, 1997

document, the National Highway Safety

Designation Act (NHSDA) directs EPA

to grant interim approval for a period of

18 months to approvable decentralized

I/M submittals. The NHSDA requires

such a state to gather data on the

program during that time, and to assess

the effectiveness of the program at the

end of the 18-month period. Therefore,

EPA believes that Congress intended for

programs to be implemented as soon as

possible, and that these programs must

commence testing by November 15,

1997, so that at least six months worth

of operational data can be collected for

the purpose of evaluating the program.

Therefore, EPA set a strict timetable

for states to begin testing under the

NHSDA, and conditioned approval of

Pennsylvania’s I/M plan upon start up

by November 15, 1997. EPA’s January

28, 1997 (62 FR 4004) interim approval

of Pennsylvania’s plan was conditioned

upon five major deficiencies—including

start up of the program. In the

Background section of the January 1997

rulemaking for Pennsylvania, EPA

stated that if the Commonwealth failed

to start its program according to

schedule, the conditional interim

approval would convert to a disapproval

after a finding letter was sent by EPA to

the state. However, in the Public

Comments/Response to Comments

section of EPA’s January 1997 rule, EPA

conversely stated that all conditions of

the conditional approval automatically

convert to disapprovals, by operation of

law, if a state fails to remedy a

deficiency upon which the plan is

conditioned (by the date certain

established under the conditional

approval). EPA further added that in the

event any condition is not fulfilled in a

timely fashion, conversion to a

disapproval is automatic. EPA would

subsequently send a letter to the state

notifying the state and the public that

the approval had converted to a

disapproval. These two sections seem to

be inconsistent, and their meaning

could be easily misinterpreted, if the

responses in the Public Comments/

Response to Comments section are

applied to the start condition, in

addition to the other noted major

deficiencies.

Correction of Publication

Although it is unclear in the January

28, 1997 rulemaking, EPA did not

intend for I/M program implementation

(or start up) to be a condition, the failure

of which would automatically convert

the Commonwealth’s SIP approval to a

disapproval. The I/M program start up

condition is not imposed pursuant to a

commitment to correct a deficient SIP

under section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air

Act. Instead, EPA is imposing the start

date condition under its general SIP

approval authority under section

110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act, which

does not require automatic conversion

in the event the condition is not

satisfied in a timely manner [see EPA’s

Interim Final Rule approving Virginia’s

enhanced I/M program (62 FR 26746)] .

Unlike the other specified conditions

of Pennsylvania’s interim approval,

which are explicit conditions under

section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act,

and which will trigger an automatic

disapproval should the Commonwealth

fail to meet its commitments, the start

date provision will trigger a disapproval

upon EPA’s notification to the

Commonwealth via letter that the

program did not start per the specified

deadlines imposed by EPA in its final

rule—by no later than November 15,

1997 for the five-county Philadelphia

area and no later than November 15,

1999 for the remaining 16 counties in

Pennsylvania. In the event the program

did not start in a timely manner, such

a letter would notify the Commonwealth

that this rulemaking action has been

converted to a disapproval and that the

first sanction associated with such a

disapproval has been triggered, per the

proposed interim final determination

document published on October 3, 1996

(61 FR 31598). As explained in that

document, the 18-month sanctions clock

for Pennsylvania’s I/M program SIP has

already expired, with sanctions

suspended while EPA undertook SIP

rulemaking action.

Although the January 28, 1997 final

rule does not make the distinction clear

between program start up and the other

conditions placed upon the interim SIP

approval, EPA intended to distinguish

the failure for timely start up from all

other major deficiencies, as explained

above. Accordingly, the publication on

January 28, 1997 (62 FR 4004) of 40 CFR

52.2026 is being amended by revising

paragraph (a) and (a)(1) to address the

start date condition.

Final Action

EPA is today correcting an error in its

January 28, 1997 interim conditional

approval of Pennsylvania’s enhanced

I/M program SIP revision. EPA is taking

this action without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse public comments

on this action. 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 January 5, 1998

unless, within 30 days of publication,

adverse or critical comments are

received.

If EPA receives such comments, this

correction 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 the parallel proposal action.

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 on January 5, 1998.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
59998 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

and, is therefore not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, this correction action does

not impose any enforceable duty or

contain any unfunded mandate as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation with state

officials as specified by Executive Order

12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),

or involve special consideration of

environmental justice related issues as

required by Executive Order 12898 (59

FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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.

However, 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 a 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 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).

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 does 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 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 this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule 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 correction action must be filed in

the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by January 5,

1998. 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 29, 1997.

William T. Wisnieski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

Part 52, 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 NN—Pennsylvania

2. Section 52.2026 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text

and (a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 52.2026 Conditional Approval.

* * * * *

(a) If the Commonwealth fails to start

its program according to the schedule it

provided (i.e., by no later than

November 15, 1997 for the five-county

Philadelphia area and no later than

November 15, 1999 for the remaining

sixteen counties), this conditional

approval will convert to a disapproval

after EPA sends a letter to the state. If

the Commonwealth fails to satisfy the

following conditions per the deadlines

listed within each condition, this

conditional approval will automatically

convert to a disapproval as explained

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air

Act. The conditions for approvability

are as follows:

(1) By no later than September 15,

1997, a notice must be published in the

Pennsylvania Bulletin by the Secretary

of the Pennsylvania Department of

Transportation which certifies that the

enhanced I/M program is required in

order to comply with Federal law and

also certifies the geographic areas which

are subject to the enhanced I/M program

(the geographic coverage must be

identical to that listed in Appendix

A–1 of the March 22, 1996 SIP

submittal), and certifies the

commencement date of the enhanced I/

M program.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29388 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5917–9]

Removal of Requirement in Gasoline

Deposit Control Additives Rule

Regarding the Identification of the

Oxygenate Content of Transferred

Gasoline

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the gasoline

deposit control additives program, (the

‘‘detergent rule’’) to remove the

requirement that certain information on

the oxygenate content of transferred

gasoline must be included in the

gasoline’s product transfer document.

EPA is taking this action to avoid

unnecessary disruption to the gasoline

distribution system and because the

Agency believes that it will result in no

negative environmental impact.

In the proposed rules section of

today’s Federal Register, EPA is

proposing the same action covered by

this direct final rule (i.e., to amend the

detergent rule to remove the

requirement that certain information on

the oxygenate content of transferred

gasoline must be included in the

gasoline’s product transfer document),

as well as several other actions

impacting the detergent rule. If adverse

comment or a request for a public

hearing is received on this direct final

rule, EPA will withdraw the direct final

rule and address the comments received

in a subsequent final rule on the related

proposed rule. No additional