Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules 67323

5EPA’s final approval of the Ventura 1994 ozone

SIP at one point states that ‘‘the Ventura control

measures are relied upon in meeting the post-1996

ROP and attainment requirements of the Act.’’ 62

FR 1176. This statement is true with respect to

attainment but is in error with respect to ROP

requirements. VCAPCD’s 1994 ozone SIP includes

a Post-96 ROP schedule that meets the minimum

CAA requirement for each milestone year (9%

reduction in emissions for each 3-year period

through the attainment year, i.e., 1999, 2002, 2005),

relying only on fully adopted regulations, with no

credit taken from local control measures. The 1994

ozone SIP uses creditable NOX reductions to

substitute for VOC shortfalls in 2002 and 2005, as

allowed by section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act.

would interfere with attainment and

reasonable further progress, or any other

applicable CAA requirement.

The cumulative effect of the proposed

extensions of implementation dates is a

decrease in 1999 emission reductions of

2.03 tpd VOC and 0.05 tpd NOX. The

net effect of the revision is considerably

less in 2002 and 2005. For these ROP

milestone years, the delayed NOx

reductions amount to only 0.02 tpd, and

VOC reductions are actually increased

by 0.14 tpd, due to recalculated benefits

from measures R–303 and R–425.

The Ventura 1994 ozone SIP meets

the minimum Federal ROP requirements

without reliance on any local measures

that were not fully adopted in regulatory

form.5 Therefore, the proposed revision

would not interfere with reasonable

further progress, which for ozone areas

is equivalent to the minimum CAA ROP

requirements applicable to the area.

Because the proposed revision simply

delays rather than relaxes or withdraws

control measures in the approved SIP,

because the total amount of postponed

emission reductions is small, because

there is a net increase in the total of

ozone precursor emission reductions in

the attainment year, and because the

VOC/NOX emission reductions reflected

in this submittal were used in the

modeled attainment demonstration in

the Ventura 1994 ozone SIP, EPA

concludes that the proposed revision

would not interfere with any

requirement of the CAA relating to the

1-hour ozone NAAQS, or any other

NAAQS, or any other State obligation

under the Act.

B. Summary of Proposed Action

In this document, EPA is proposing to

approve the 1997 update to the 1994

ozone SIP for Ventura under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. The

effect of this approval, if finalized,

would be to amend the federally

enforceable adoption and

implementation dates and emission

reductions for 8 measures in the

Ventura 1994 ozone SIP as shown in the

tables above entitled ‘‘Revised Adoption

and Implementation Dates for Ventura

Measures’’ and ‘‘Revised Emission

Reductions for Ventura Measures.’’

III. Regulatory Process

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

business, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA,

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIP’s 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).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’)

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

section 110 and 182(b) of the CAA.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved or

disapproved by this action will impose

any mandate upon the State, local, or

tribal governments either as the owner

or operator of a source or as a regulator,

or would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these requirements

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does

not include a mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: December 16, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 97–33609 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 441

[FRL–5940–8]

A Public Hearing on the Proposed

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

Pretreatment Standards for the

Industrial Laundries (IL) Industry

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is conducting a second public

hearing, in addition to the public

hearing being conducted in Washington,

D.C. to inform the public of the

proposed effluent limitations guidelines

and standards for the industrial

laundries industry. The hearing is

intended for interested parties to

provide comments to the Agency on

disputed technical, scientific, economic,

or other issues.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

on Wednesday, January 21, 1998, from

9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at

the Henry M. Jackson Federal Building,

South Auditorium, Seattle, Washington.

The building is located at 915 2nd

Avenue. Persons wishing to present

formal comments at the public hearing

should have a written copy for

submittal.

A limited number of rooms are

available at the Westin Seattle Hotel.
67324 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Hotel reservations may be made by

calling (206) 727–5888 and refer to the

EPA Public Hearing to obtain a group

rate of $99.00. The Westin Hotel at 1900

5th Avenue is approximately 10 blocks

from the Henry M. Jackson Federal

Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marta Jordan, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street

SW., Washington DC 20460. Telephone

(202) 260–0817, fax (202) 260–7185 or

E-Mail Jordan.Marta@epamail.epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

proposed effluent limitations guidelines

and pretreatment standards for the

Industrial Laundries Category under

authority of the Clean Water Act (33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (62 FR 66182,

December 17, 1997). The Industrial

Laundries Category includes facilities

that launder industrial textile items

such as, industrial: garments and

uniforms, shop towels, printer towels,

mops, mats, and dust control items from

off-site as a business activity. The items

that are laundered are owned either by

the laundry facilities or their customers.

Often these facilities wash other items

that are not classified as industrial

textile items, such as linen supply

garments, linen flatwork, health-care

items, and miscellaneous other items.

The public hearing will include a

brief discussion of the proposed rule

which includes scope, technology-based

regulatory options, and other general

industrial laundries industry issues. The

hearing will be recorded or transcribed

by a reporter for inclusion in the record

for the Industrial Laundries Category

rulemaking.

Documents relating to the topics

mentioned above and a more detailed

agenda will be available at the meeting.

Dated: December 18, 1997.

Tudor Davies,

Director, Office of Science and Technology.

[FR Doc. 97–33608 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Public Hearings on the

Proposed Rule To List the Topeka

Shiner as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public

hearings and reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) gives notice that four public

hearings will be held on its proposal to

list the Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka)

as an endangered species. The Service

proposed endangered status pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act (Act) of

1973, as amended, for the Topeka shiner

on October 24, 1997 (62 FR 55381).

These hearings will allow additional

comments on this proposal to be

submitted from all interested parties.

DATES: The comment period on the

proposal is reopened from January 12,

1998 through February 9, 1998. The

public hearings will be held from 7 to

9:30 p.m. on each of the following

evenings: January 26, 1998, in

Manhattan, Kansas; January 27, 1998, in

Bethany, Missouri; January 28, 1998, in

Ft. Dodge, Iowa; and January 29, 1998,

in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. An

informal open forum will precede each

hearing from 5 to 6:30 p.m. each

evening.

ADDRESSES: The January 26 hearing will

be held at the Kansas State University

Student Union, Main Ballroom, 17th

Street and Anderson Avenue,

Manhattan, Kansas; the January 27

hearing will be held at the Bethany

Community Center, 103 N. 25th Street,

Bethany, Missouri; the January 28

hearing will be held at Iowa Central

Community College, Vo-Tech Building,

Conference Rooms 1 and 2, 330 Avenue

M, Fort Dodge, Iowa; and the January 29

hearing will be at the University of

Sioux Falls, Chapel Auditorium-Jeschke

Fine Arts Center, 1101 West 22nd

Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Written comments and materials should

be sent to: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 315 Houston St.,

Suite E, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vernon Tabor at the above address (785/

539–3474).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires

that a public hearing be held on the

proposal to list the Topeka shiner as an

endangered species, if requested within

45 days of the proposal’s publication in

the Federal Register. Public requests

were received in the allotted time

period from parties in Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, and South Dakota.

Anyone expecting to make an oral

presentation at these hearings is

encouraged to provide a written copy of

their statement to the hearing officer

prior to the start of the hearing. In the

event there is a large attendance, the

time allotted for oral statements may

have to be limited. Oral and written

statements receive equal consideration.

There are no limits to the length of

written comments presented at these

hearings or mailed to the Service.

In order to accommodate the

scheduled public hearings, the Service

extends the public comment period.

Written comments may be submitted

from January 12, 1998 through February

9, 1998, to: Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this document

is Vernon Tabor (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531).

Dated: December 18, 1997.

Ralph O. Morgenweck,

Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.

[FR Doc. 97–33537 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M