Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64543

1The San Francisco Bay Area was redesignated to

attainment and was classified by operation of law

pursuant to Sections 107(d) upon the date of

enactment of the CAA. See 60 FR 98 (May 22,

1995). The EPA is proposing to redesignate the San

Francisco Bay Area back to nonattainment for ozone

based on a number of violations of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

2EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 179–0060; FRL–5932–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concerns the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

architectural coatings.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of this rule 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 this proposed

rulemaking will incorporate this rule

into the federally approved SIP. EPA

has evaluated this rule and is proposing

to approve it under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, EPA’s general rulemaking

authority, plan submissions, and

enforceability guidelines.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before January 7, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Comments must be submitted to

Andrew Steckel at the Region IX office

listed above. Copies of the rule revisions

and EPA’s evaluation report of this 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:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901, (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval

into the California SIP is Bay Area Air

Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) Rule 8–3, Architectural

Coatings. This rule was submitted by

the California Air Resources Board to

EPA on July 23, 1996.

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

preamended Act), that included the San

Francisco Bay Area. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR

81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified

the Governor of California, pursuant to

section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended

Act, that the above district’s portions of

the California SIP were inadequate to

attain and maintain the ozone standard

and requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

On November 12, 1993, BAAQMD

submitted a request for redesignation to

attainment of the ozone standard.

Subsequently, EPA evaluated and

approved BAAQMD’s request and the

San Francisco Bay Area was reclassified

as an attainment area.1

The State of California submitted

many rules for incorporation into its SIP

on July 23, 1996, including the rule

being acted on in this document. This

document addresses EPA’s proposed

action for Bay Area Air Quality

Management District Rule 8–3,

Architectural Coatings. The Bay Area

Air Quality Management District

adopted Rule 8–3 on December 20,

1995. This submitted rule was found to

be complete on October 30, 1996

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 2 and is being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

The Bay Area Air Quality

Management District Rule 8–3 controls

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from architectural coatings.

VOCs contribute to the production of

ground-level ozone and smog. This rule

was originally adopted as part of the

district’s efforts to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone and in response to EPA’s SIPCall and the section 110(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for this

rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

In addition, this rule was evaluated

against the SIP enforceability guidelines

found in ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and

Deviations—Clarification to Appendix D

of November 24, 1987 Federal Register’’

(EPA’s ‘‘Blue Book’’) and the EPA

Region IX—California Air Resources

Board document entitled ‘‘Guidance

Document for Correcting VOC Rule

Deficiencies’’ (April 1991). In general,

these guidance documents have been set

forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain

the SIP.

On January 24, 1985, EPA approved

into the SIP a version of Rule 8–3,

Architectural Coatings that had been

adopted by the BAAQMD on May 18,

1983. The BAAQMD Rule 8–3

submitted on July 23, 1996 includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Section 8–3–112, 8–3–227, 8–3–

305, 8–3–402, and 8–3–403 remove the

small business exemption, definition,

and all references to it;

• Sections 8–3–212 and 8–3–213

consolidate the industrial maintenance

finishes (topcoats) and industrial

maintenance primers definitions;

• Section 8–3–233 revises the varnish

definition;

• Section 8–3–236 through 8–3–245

define volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) and nine subcategories of

industrial maintenance coatings;

• Section 8–3–304 changes the

effective date of VOC limits from

September 1, 1989 to September 1,

1987;

• Section 8–3–306 provides that the

most restrictive VOC limit shall apply;

and

• Section 8–3–403 removes labeling

requirements for coatings subject to

interim VOC limits which have now

expired.
64544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The BAAQMD staff report for Rule 8–

3 states that the rule amendments will

not change any existing VOC limits.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is

enforceable and strengthens the

applicable SIP. Therefore, Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Rule 8–3,

Architectural Coatings is being

proposed for approval under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and

pursuant to EPA’s authority under

section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by

strengthening the SIP.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or 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

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

301 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 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 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: November 23, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32043 Filed 12–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Hearings and Appeals

43 CFR Part 4

RIN 1090–AA63

Department Hearings and Appeals

Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: This action extends the

comment period an additional 60 days

on the Department of the Interior’s

Office of Hearings and Appeals’

proposal to amend its rules to provide

that, except as otherwise provided by

law or other regulation, a decision will

be stayed, if it is appealed, until there

is a dispositive decision on the appeal.

DATES: Comments are due to the agency

on or before February 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22203. Comments

received will be available for public

inspection during regular business

hours (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) in the Office of

the Director, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, 11th Floor, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, VA. Persons

wishing to inspect comments are

requested to call in advance at (703)

235–3810 to make an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Harris, Deputy Chief

Administrative Judge, Interior Board of

Land Appeals, Office of Hearings and

Appeals, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22203. Telephone: (703)

235–3750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

19, 1997, the Department of the Interior

proposed to amend the regulation

contained at 43 CFR 4.21 (August 28,

1997, 62 FR 45606). Comments to this

proposed rule were to be received on or

before September 29, 1997.

On October 3, 1997, the Department

of the Interior extended the comment

period an additional 60 days until

December 2, 1997, in response to

requests received from the National

Mining Association and the Rocky

Mountain Oil and Gas Association

(RMOGA). (62 FR 51822).

The Director of the Office of Hearings

and Appeals (OHA) received several

letters requesting an additional

extension of the comment period

beyond December 2, 1997. In a letter

dated November 21, 1997, RMOGA

requested an additional 45-day

extension of the comment period, to

allow for receipt of data requested in a

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request, and full analysis of the data and

preparation of a thoughtful response to

the proposed change. In addition, by

letter dated November 19, 1997, ARCO

Permian, a member of RMOGA,

requested additional time to respond

after review of the response to the

RMOGA’s FOIA request. By letter dated

November 25, 1997, the Natural Gas

Supply Association, the Mid-Continent

Oil and Gas Association, the Domestic

Petroleum Council, the National Ocean