7978 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–93–48 (see

docket section below), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

The EPA requests that a separate copy

also be sent to the contact person listed

below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Ms. JoLynn Collins, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5671.

Docket. Docket No. A–93–48,

containing the supporting information

for the original national emission

standards for hazardous air pollutants

(NESHAP) and this action, are available

for public inspection and copying

between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at the EPA’s

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), 401 M Street

SW, Washington DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–7548. The docket is located at

the above address in Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor). A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Durham, Waste and Chemical

Processes Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–5672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no

significant, adverse comments are

timely received, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule, and the direct final rule

in the final rules section of this Federal

Register will automatically go into effect

on the date specified in that rule. If

significant adverse comments are

received the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comment

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. Because the EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this proposed rule, any parties

interested in commenting should do so

during this comment period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

provisions, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735, (October 4, 1993)], the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Order defines

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or land programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Because today’s action clarifies

existing control requirements and does

not add any additional control,

monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting

requirements, this rule was classified

‘‘non-significant’’ under Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore was not

reviewed by OMB.

Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it

simply clarifies the applicability of

control requirements in the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP, does not alter

control, monitoring, recordkeeping, or

reporting requirements, and does not

include any provisions that create a

burden for any of the regulated entities.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act, the EPA must prepare a

statement to accompany any rule where

the estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, will be $100 million or more per

year. At the time of promulgation, the

EPA determined that the petroleum

refineries NESHAP 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 determination is not

altered by today’s action, the purpose of

which is to add clarity and flexibility to

existing requirements. Consequently, an

unfunded mandates statement has not

been prepared.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous air

pollutants, Petroleum refineries,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Storage vessels.

Dated: February 11, 1997.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–4325 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5689–5]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program; State of

Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes adding a

sixth interim approval condition to its

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by Maine for

the purpose of complying with Federal

requirements for an approvable State

program to issue operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources. In today’s Federal

Register, see the final interim approval

granting Maine’s program, EPA is

granting source category-limited interim

approval to Maine’s Operating Permits

Program subject to five conditions listed

in that action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Donald Dahl, Air Permits,

CAP, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203–2211. Copies of the

State’s submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the

proposed interim approval are available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 7979

1Note that states may require applications to be

submitted earlier than required under section

503(c). See Chapter 140, Appendix C.3. of Maine’s

rules.

Region 1, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA 02203–2211.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Dahl, CAP, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 1, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203–

2211, (617) 565–4298.

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments (sections

501–507 of the Clean Air Act (‘‘the

Act’’)), EPA has promulgated rules

which define the minimum elements of

an approvable State operating permits

program and the corresponding

standards and procedures by which the

EPA will approve, oversee, and

withdraw approval of State operating

permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July

21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

70. Title V requires States to develop,

and submit to EPA, programs for issuing

these operating permits to all major

stationary sources and to certain other

sources.

The Act requires that States develop

and submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the Part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA were to finalize this additional

condition for interim approval, it would

extend for two years following the

effective date of final interim approval,

which is 30 days from today. During the

interim approval period, the State of

Maine would be protected from

sanctions, and EPA would not be

obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program for

the State of Maine. Permits issued under

a program with interim approval have

full standing with respect to Part 70,

and the 1-year time period for submittal

of permit applications by subject

sources begins upon the effective date of

interim approval, as does the 3-year

time period for processing the initial

permit applications.1

Following final interim approval, if

the State of Maine failed to submit a

complete corrective program for full

approval by the date 6 months before

expiration of the interim approval, EPA

would start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the State of

Maine then failed to submit a corrective

program that EPA found complete

before the expiration of that 18-month

period, EPA would apply sanctions as

required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act,

which would remain in effect until EPA

determined that the State of Maine had

corrected the deficiency by submitting a

complete corrective program. If, six

months after application of the first

sanction, the State of Maine still has not

submitted a corrective program that EPA

finds complete, a second sanction will

be required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the State of

Maine’s complete corrective program,

EPA would be required under section

502(d)(2) to apply sanctions on the date

18 months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

State of Maine had submitted a revised

program and EPA had determined that

it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval. If, six

months after EPA applies the first

sanction, the State of Maine has not

submitted a revised program that EPA

has determined corrected the

deficiencies that prompted disapproval,

a second sanction will be required.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to the State of Maine’s program

by the expiration of an interim approval

and that expiration occurs after

November 15, 1995, EPA must

promulgate, administer and enforce a

Federal permits program for the State of

Maine upon interim approval

expiration.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

This document focuses on adding a

sixth condition for granting full

approval of Maine’s title V operating

permits program. Maine’s title V

program, submitted on October 23,

1995, contained a list of ‘‘insignificant

activities’’ that an applicant did not

need to address in its application or

have the activity listed in its permit

unless that activity was subject to an

applicable requirement. See 40 CFR

70.5(c). The list contained 156 activities

and was developed by consolidating

title V programs from several other

States. EPA proposed approving this

list, 61 FR 49289 (September 19, 1996).

In part, EPA based its proposal to

approve Maine’s insignificant activity

list on the fact that Maine’s program

requires that an activity, if subject to an

applicable requirement, must be listed

in a facility’s application. In addition,

EPA was not aware that any of the

activities listed had emissions above

what EPA considered insignificant.

On October 17, 1996, EPA received a

comment from the Town of Jay stating

that six of the activities listed in Maine’s

program had significant emissions. The

activities the Town listed in its

comments were: (1) Paper forming; (2)

vacuum system exhaust; (3) liquor

clarifier and storage tanks and

associated pumping, piping, and

handling; (4) stock cleaning and

pressurized pulp washing; (5) broke

beaters, repulpers, pulp and repulping

tanks, stock chests and bulk pulp

handling; and (6) sewer manholes,

junction boxes, sumps and lift stations

associated with wastewater treatment

systems. According to the Town, total

emissions from these activities at just

one facility exceeds 1000 tons of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) per year.

However, EPA also received a letter

from an industrial facility claiming the

emissions were overstated by the Town,

and in fact were less than 100 tons of

VOCs per year. The Maine DEP

submitted a letter questioning the

assumptions Jay made in projecting

emission levels from these activities. Jay

also submitted a second letter

explaining its assumptions. All this

correspondence is available in the

docket supporting this action.

Based on all data EPA has received to

date about the emissions from these

activities, EPA concludes that the

emissions from all of these activities can

approach or exceed major source or

major modification thresholds under the

Act and therefore are not ‘‘insignificant’’

for the purposes of a title V application,

even if there is no applicable

requirement for these activities.

Therefore, these six items should be

removed from the list of insignificant

activities. Maine still has flexibility;

however, to tailor how much

information about these activities a

source would need to include in its

application because it appears that there

are no current applicable requirements

for these activities. For example, EPA’s

‘‘White Paper for Streamlined

Development of Part 70 Permit

Applications,’’ dated July 10, 1995

suggests a general description of the

emissions and emission units would

suffice for units subject to no applicable

requirements.

B. Proposed Action

The scope of Maine’s Part 70 program

covers all Part 70 sources within the
7980 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

state of Maine, except any sources of air

pollution over which an Indian Tribe

has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813,

55815–18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term

‘‘Indian Tribe’’ is defined under the Act

as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or

other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village,

which is Federally recognized as

eligible for the special programs and

services provided by the United States

to Indians because of their status as

Indians.’’ See section 302(r) of the CAA;

see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25,

1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993). EPA

is not taking any position in this action

on whether any Federally recognized

tribe in Maine has jurisdiction over

sources of air pollution.

The EPA is proposing to add a sixth

condition to Maine’s source categorylimited interim approval of the

operating permits program submitted by

Maine on October 24, 1995. If

promulgated, the State must make, in

addition to the five conditions stated in

the final rules section of today’s Federal

Register, the following change in its rule

to receive full approval:

1. Maine must remove the following

activities from Appendix B of Chapter

140 of the State’s rules: (1) Paper

forming; (2) vacuum system exhaust; (3)

liquor clarifier and storage tanks and

associated pumping, piping, and

handling; (4) stock cleaning and

pressurized pulp washing; (5) broke

beaters, repulpers, pulp and repulping

tanks, stock chests and bulk pulp

handling; and (6) sewer manholes,

junction boxes, sumps and lift stations

associated with wastewater treatment

systems.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

this additional proposed interim

approval condition. Copies of the State’s

submittal and other information relied

upon for the proposed interim approval

are contained in a docket maintained at

the EPA Regional Office. The docket is

an organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties a

means to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the approval process, and

(2) To serve as the administrative

record in the event of judicial review.

The EPA will consider any comments

received by March 24, 1997.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. 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 action

promulgated today 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 preexisting 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. Additionally, it will not cost

$100 million to operate or comply with

this program.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–4328 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–63, RM–9000]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Greenwood , AR

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Fred R. Morton, Jr. requesting

the allotment of Channel 268A to

Greenwood, Arkansas, as its second

local FM transmission service.

Coordinates used for Channel 268A at

Greenwood are 35–12–54 and 94–15–30.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 7, 1997, and reply

comments on or before April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Fred R. Morton,

Jr., 5103 North Cherry, Lawton, OK

73505.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–63, adopted February 7, 1997, and

released February 14, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.