64794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

chapter to terminate the attorney’s or

agent’s right to practice before the

Department of Veterans Affairs and the

Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

[FR Doc. 97–32107 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ059–0005; FRL–5933–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

Maricopa County’s Ordinance P–7,

Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Ordinance, as a revision to the Arizona

State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA’s

final approval of this proposed rule will

incorporate it into the federally

approved SIP. EPA has evaluated the

rule and is proposing to approve it

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 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Frances Wicher, Office of Air

Planning, (AIR–2), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the ordinance and EPA’s

evaluation of the ordinance is available

for public inspection at EPA’s Region 9

office during normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Office Of Air Planning

(AIR–2), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Maricopa County is designated

nonattainment and classified as a

serious area for ozone, carbon monoxide

(CO), and particulate matter. See 62 FR

60001 (November 6, 1997), 61 FR 39343

(July 29, 1996) and 60 FR 30046 (June

7, 1995). Emissions from motor vehicles

contribute substantially to exceedances

of the national ambient air quality

standards for all three pollutants in the

Maricopa area. Over the years the State

has adopted a comprehensive motor

vehicle emission control program

including a number of transportation

control measures to address this

problem.

In 1988, the Arizona legislature

adopted a trip reduction program for

Maricopa County (see 1988 Session,

Arizona House Bill (H.B.) 2206, section

23, codified at Arizona Revised Statutes

(A.R.S.) Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 8)

and directed Maricopa County to

implement the program.

The State submitted this program in

its 1988 Carbon Monoxide Plan for the

Maricopa County nonattainment area

and EPA approved the program as part

of its approval of that plan. 53 FR 30224

(August 10, 1988) and 40 CFR

52.120(c)(65)(i)(A)(l). In 1990, EPA’s

approval of the 1988 CO plan was

vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals in Delaney v. EPA, 898 F. 2d

687 (1990). EPA subsequently restored

its approval of the control measures in

that plan, including the trip reduction

program. 56 FR 3219 (January 29, 1991).

Since 1988, the legislature has revised

the trip reduction program several times

to tighten the trip reduction goals,

decrease the threshold size of employers

subject to the program from 100 to 50

employees, extend the program to

schools, and to otherwise revise the

program. In addition, the legislature

directed Maricopa County to ‘‘make and

enforce’’ an ordinance consistent with

A.R.S. 49–588 (Requirements for major

employers). A.R.S. 49–474.01(B) (1993

6th Special Session, H.B. 2001, section

24). On May 26, 1994, in compliance

with the statute, the County

subsequently adopted Maricopa County

Environmental Services Department

(MCESD), Ordinance No. P–7 Maricopa

County Trip Reduction Ordinance.

II. Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Ordinance

MCESD Ordinance No. P–7 was

submitted as a SIP revision by the

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality to EPA on August 31, 1995. The

submittal became complete by operation

of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B)

on February 29, 1996.

The ordinance requires employers

with 50 or more employees or schools

with 50 or more employees or students

to, among other things, conduct and

submit annually an employee/student

commute survey (section 7(A));

disseminate information on alternative

modes and other trip reduction

measures (section 7(E)); develop and

submit a trip reduction plan designed to

meet target reductions in singleoccupant-vehicle (SOV) trips and

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) (section

7(C)); and implement the trip reduction

plan (section 7 (B) and (D)).

Failure to meet trip reduction goals

does not constitute a violation of the

ordinance if the employer or school is

attempting in good faith to meet the

goals (section 13(C)(2)); however, failure

to comply with other specific

requirements of the ordinance, such as

the failure to submit or to implement an

approved trip reduction plan, do

constitute violations of the ordinance

and are subject to penalties as provided

in A.R.S. 49–593(D).

The Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Program is staffed by the Maricopa

County Trip Reduction Program Staff

under MCESD. The 1996 annual report

on the program states that in 1996, 2,501

employment sites were processed, more

than 570,000 employees and students

were surveyed, and more than 1,500 trip

reduction plans were reviewed. The

report demonstrates that the program

has been effective in reducing both SOV

trips and VMT in the Maricopa area. See

Annual Report 1996, Maricopa County

Trip Reduction Program, MCESD.

III. Clean Air Act Requirements

In determining the approvability of a

rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

There are currently no Clean Air Act

requirements mandating trip reduction

programs (also known as employer

commute options or ECO programs).

The CAA Amendments of 1990 required

severe and above ozone nonattainment

areas and serious CO nonattainment

areas to adopt ECO programs (see

sections 182(d)(1)(B) and 187(b)(2),

respectively, of the Clean Air Act as

amended on November 15, 1990).

However, prior to the July 1996

reclassification of the Maricopa area

from a moderate to a serious CO

nonattainment area, Congress passed

legislation amending section

182(d)(1)(B) to make the adoption and

implementation of ECO programs

voluntary (Public Law 104–70, § 1, 109

Stat. 773, signed into law on December

23, 1995). Therefore, to be approvable,

the ordinance need only meet the

general SIP provisions of CAA section

110(a) (1) and (l) and EPA’s regulations

and policies implementing these

provisions.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64795

IV. EPA Evaluation

EPA has evaluated the submitted

ordinance and has determined that it is

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy.

Specifically, the ordinance is

enforceable and there is evidence of

sufficient personnel, funding, and

authority under State law for Maricopa

County to carry out the program.

Finally, this ordinance is more stringent

than the existing SIP-approved trip

reduction program in both applicability

(50 employee threshold versus 100

employee threshold in the SIP-approved

rule) and in the overall trip and VMT

reduction goals. As a result, this

ordinance, if approved into the SIP, will

strenghten the SIP and not interfere

with any applicable requirement

concerning attainment and reasonable

further progress or any other applicable

requirement of the CAA. CAA section

110(l). Therefore, EPA is proposing to

approve MCESD’s Ordinance P–7,

Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Ordinance (May 26, 1994) under section

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

requirements of section 110 (a) and (l).

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.

V. 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 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,

Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32185 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50629; FRL–5752–9]

RIN 2070–AB27

Proposed Revocation of Significant

New Use Rules for Certain Chemical

Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke

significant new use rules (SNURs) for 12

substances promulgated under section

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA) for certain chemical

substances based on new data. Based on

the new data the Agency no longer finds

that activities not described in the

corresponding TSCA section 5(e)

consent order or the premanufacture

notice (PMN) for these chemical

substances may result in significant

changes in human or environmental

exposure.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by EPA by January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear

the docket control number OPPTS–

50629 and the name(s) of the chemical

substance(s) subject to the comment. All

comments should be sent in triplicate

to: OPPT Document Control Officer

(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Room G–099,

East Tower, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to:

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under Unit III. of this

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

All comments which contain

information claimed as CBI must be

clearly marked as such. Three sanitized

copies of any comments containing

information claimed as CBI must also be

submitted and will be placed in the

public record for this rulemaking.

Persons submitting information on any

portion of which they believe is entitled

to treatment as CBI by EPA must assert

a business confidentiality claim in

accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for

each portion. This claim must be made