66042 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

assuming no add-on controls. Second,

once a source’s VOC emissions exceed

the size cutoff, that source is subject to

the emission control requirements of the

rule, even if those emissions later fall

below the cutoff limit. A more detailed

discussion of the rule’s deficiencies can

be found in the technical support

document for Rule 336 available at the

U.S. EPA, Region 9 office.

Given these deficiencies, the rule is

not approvable pursuant to the section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA. Also, EPA

cannot grant full approval of this rule

under section 110(k)(3) and part D.

Because the submitted rule is not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP.

The approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. To strengthen the

SIP, EPA is proposing a limited

approval of Maricopa County’s

submitted Rule 336 under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. At the

same time, EPA is proposing a limited

disapproval of this rule because it

contains deficiencies that have not been

corrected as required by section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,

the rule does not fully meet the

requirements of part D of the Act.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment, based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within eighteen months of such

disapproval. Section 179(b) provides

two sanctions available to the

Administrator: highway funding and

emission offsets. The eighteen month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA’s final

limited disapproval. Also, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted

that the rule covered by this proposed

rule making has been adopted by

Maricopa County and is in effect. EPA’s

final limited disapproval action will not

prevent Maricopa County, the State of

Arizona, or EPA from enforcing this

rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, 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

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 E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 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.

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 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 Federal 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,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 5, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32786 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–27–1–5945, FRL–5935–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas; Disapproval of Texas

Clean Fuel Fleet Program Revision to

the State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending the

public comment period from November

17, 1997, to January 16, 1998, on the

proposed disapproval notice of the

Texas Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) SIP

revision under the Clean Air Act. The

proposed disapproval document was

published in the Federal Register on
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66043

1Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Continued

October 17, 1997. The extension to the

public comment period is being granted

by EPA in response to the State’s

request to have additional time to assess

the proposal, analyze the alternative

options available and submit comments

reflecting this analysis. A similar

request was also made by the National

Association of Fleet Administrators. For

additional information please refer to

the proposed disapproval document

published in the Federal Register on

October 17, 1997 (62 FR 53997).

DATES: Comments on the proposed

disapproval must be received in writing

by January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs,

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), at

the EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents about this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. Persons

interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street,

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

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711–3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul Scoggins, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas, 75202,

telephone (214) 665–7354.

Dated: December 4, 1997.

W.B. Hathaway,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32785 Filed 12–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 017–0004; FRL–5936–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that concern

the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

solvent cleaning, petroleum solvent dry

cleaning, rubber sports ball

manufacturing, graphic arts,

semiconductor manufacturing, vegetable

oil extraction processes, wood furniture

and fixture coating, wood millwork

coating, and loading of organic liquids.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on these proposed

rules will incorporate them into the

federally approved SIP. EPA has

evaluated each of these rules and is

proposing to approve them under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Rulemaking Office, [AIR–4], Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3003 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012

Maricopa County Environmental Services

Department, 2406 S. 24th Street, Suite E–

214, Phoenix, AZ 85034

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking

Office (AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the Arizona SIP include: Maricopa

County Environmental Services

Department, Technical Services

Division (MCESD) Rules 331—Solvent

Cleaning, 333—Petroleum Solvent Dry

Cleaning, 334—Rubber Sports Ball

Manufacturing, 337—Graphic Arts,

338—Semiconductor Manufacturing,

339—Vegetable Oil Extraction

Processes, 342—Coating Wood

Furniture and Fixture, 346—Coating

Wood Millwork, and 351—Loading of

Organic Liquids. These rules were

submitted by the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to EPA

on February 4, 1993 (Rule 339), August

31, 1995 (Rule 351), February 26, 1997

(Rules 331, 333, 334, 336, and 338) and

March 4, 1997 (Rules 342, 337, and 346)

respectively.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), which included

Maricopa County (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR

81.305). On March 19, 1979, EPA

changed the name and modified the

geographic boundaries of the ozone

nonattainment area to the Maricopa

Association of Governments (MAG)

Urban Planning Area (44 FR 16391, 40

CFR 81.303). On February 24, 1984, EPA

notified the Governor of Arizona,

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

pre-amended Act, that MAG’s portion of

the Arizona SIP was inadequate to attain

and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall, 49 FR 18827, May 3, 1984). On

May 26, 1988, EPA again notified the

Governor of Arizona that MAG’s portion

of the SIP was inadequate to attain and

maintain the ozone standard and

requested that deficiencies relating to

VOC controls and the application of

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) in the existing SIP be corrected

(EPA’s second SIP-Call, 53 FR 34500,

September 7, 1988). On November 15,

1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 were enacted. Public Law 101–

549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42

U.S.C. 7401–7671q. In amended section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress

statutorily adopted the requirement that

nonattainment areas fix their deficient

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for ozone and established

a deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to

submit corrections of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that