11138 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

15% plan and the 1990 VOC emission

inventory for Philadelphia 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.

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.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under section 110 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, EPA

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).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing state

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the state

submittal does not affect its stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new federal

requirement.

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.

The Regional Administrator’s

decision to approve or disapprove the

SIP revision pertaining to the

Philadelphia 15% plan and 1990 VOC

emission inventory will be based on

whether it meets the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) (A)–(K) and part D of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental regulations,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: February 28, 1997.

Stanley Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–6019 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 86

[AMS–FRL–5701–7]

Extension of Interim Revised Durability

Procedures for Light-Duty Vehicles

and Light-Duty Trucks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today’s proposal was

originally published as a Direct Final

Rule (61 FR 58618, November 15, 1996),

but the amendments were removed due

to the receipt of an adverse comment.

On January 12, 1993, EPA published

a final rule establishing interim

durability procedures used for

demonstrating compliance with light

duty vehicle and light duty truck

emission standards, applicable in model

years 1994–1996 only. On July 18, 1994,

EPA published a direct final rule

extending the applicability of the

original rule through model year 1998.

Today’s proposal extends the

applicability of those durability

procedures indefinitely. The Agency

intends to conduct a separate

rulemaking to implement a long-term

durability program; however, such an

action will be linked to others as part of

a broad-based streamlining initiative for

all vehicle emission compliance

activities. It is difficult to predict with

any precision when this subsequent

action will occur. The Agency currently

estimates that new compliance

regulations will be promulgated such

that they would become effective no

earlier than the 2000 model year.

Because the current durability

regulations expire at the end of the 1998

model year, failure to proceed with

today’s proposal would result in less

effective and inefficient durability

regulations beginning with the 1999

model year, and may create timing

problems for manufacturers planning to

use alternate durability processes in the

1999 model year, since the durability

demonstration procedures would revert

back to requiring the AMA mileage

accumulation process, a procedure

which requires 100,000 miles to be

accumulated on a prototype vehicle.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 25, 1997. A public

hearing will be held on March 27, 1997.

Request to present oral testimony must

be received at least 5 days prior to the

hearing.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments (in duplicate,

if possible) to Public Docket No. A–93–

46 at: Air Docket Section, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Materials relevant to this proposed rule

have been placed in Docket No. A–93–

46. Additional documents of relevance

may be found in Docket No. A–90–24.

The docket is located at the above

address in room M–1500, Waterside

Mall, and may be inspected weekdays

between 8:30 a.m. and noon, and

between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. A

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA

for copying docket materials. The public

hearing will be held at the Courtyard by

Marriott, 3205 Boardwalk, Ann Arbor,

MI. The hearing will begin at 10 am and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 11139

continue until all testimony has been

presented.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Hormes, Vehicle Programs and

Compliance Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone (313) 668–

4502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

The preamble and regulatory language

are available electronically on the

Technology Transfer Network (TTN), an

electronic bulletin board system

operated by EPA’s Office of Air Quality,

Planning and Standards. Users are able

to access and download TTN files of

their first call. After logging on to TTN,

to navigate through the system for the

files of interest, the user must enter the

appropriate command at each of a series

of menus. The steps required to access

information on this rulemaking are

listed below. The service is free of

charge, except for the cost of the phone

call. TTN bulletin board system: (919)

541–5742 (1200–14400 pbs, no parity, 8

data bits, 1 stop bit)

Voice Helpline: (919) 541–5384

Internet access address: TELNET

ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov.

Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to

12:00 Noon ET.

1. Technology Transfer Network Top

Menu <T> GATEWAY TO TTN

TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards);

Command: T.

2. TTN TECHNICAL INFORMATION

AREAS: <M> OMS—Mobile Sources

Information; Command: M.

3. OMS BBS—MAIN MENU: <K>

Rulemaking & Reporting; Command: K.

4. [1] Light Duty; File Area 2 LD

VEHICLE DURABILITY.

At this stage, the system will list all

available files. To download a file,

select a transfer protocol which will

match the terminal software on your

own computer, then set your own

software to receive the file using that

same protocol.

If unfamiliar with handling

compressed (i.e. ZIP’ed) files, go to the

TTN top menu, System Utilities

(Command: 1) for information and the

necessary program to download in order

to unZIP the files of interest after

downloading to your computer. After

getting the files you want onto your

computer, you can quit the TTN BBS

with the <G>oodbye command.

Internet Access: The preamble,

regulatory language and regulatory

support document are also available

electronically from the following EPA

internet sites:

World Wide Web: http://www.epa.gov/

OMSWWW/

Gopher: gopher://gopher.epa.gov/

Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS

FTP: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/

Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc. may occur.

I. Background

On January 12, 1993, the Agency

published interim procedures for motor

vehicle manufacturers to use in

demonstrating compliance with

emission standards for light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks (58 FR

3994). That rule, referred to hereafter as

the ‘‘RDP–I’’ rule, made the interim

procedures applicable to model years

1994 through 1996, but not thereafter.

The Agency initially planned to

promulgate a separate durability

regulation, hereafter referred to as ‘‘RDP

II’’ which was to become effective

beginning with the 1997 model year.

However, that became impractical due

to lead time constraints for

manufacturers wishing to certify

vehicles in that model year and the

uncertainty that sufficient lead time

existed for implementation in the 1998

model year as well.

Consequently, the Agency

promulgated a direct final rule which

extended the applicability of the RDP–

I interim rulemaking through model

year 1998 (59 FR 36368). This was

intended to provide manufacturers with

timely notice of the regulations

applicable for certifying vehicles

through model year 1998 while EPA

continued work on preparing and

finalizing further technical and

procedural improvements to the RDP II

program. While work on the RDP–II rule

proceeded, various new events and

actions precluded the timely completion

of this project. In particular, in 1995 the

Agency undertook an initiative to revise

the current vehicle compliance program,

including the RDP–I durability

protocols. The revisions would be

implemented via new compliance

program regulations which are projected

to become effective with the 2000 model

year. These regulations would replace

the RDP–I interim procedures as well as

other activities associated with vehicle

compliance. Because these regulations

are still in the development stage, it is

not possible to provide manufacturers

with a firm effective date. Therefore, the

Agency believes today’s proposal of

indefinitely extending the existing RDP–

I regulations will satisfy the industry’s

need to plan its durability programs and

will retain the current durability options

which can be improved upon in future

rulemaking actions.

II. Environmental Effects and Economic

Impacts

A. Economic Impacts

This proposal extends an existing

program without modification, and as

such, the Agency does not expect any

new economic impacts over and above

those described in the interim

rulemaking. In general, the RDP–I

interim rulemaking projected annual

cost savings with respect to the

previously existing program of

approximately $8.6 million, and

although this number is highly

dependent upon the interaction of

several variables, all modeled scenarios

resulted in some level of savings. A

complete description of those impacts is

contained in 58 FR 3994 (January 12,

1993).

B. Environmental and Cost-Benefit

Impacts

The RDP I rulemaking revised testing

and administrative procedures

necessary to determine the compliance

of light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks with the Tier 1 emission

standards promulgated in June 1991,

and no environmental benefit was

claimed over and above that already

accounted for in the Tier 1 rule. Today’s

proposal will similarly claim no

environmental benefit. A detailed

discussion of the Tier 1 environmental

impacts can be found in 56 FR 25734

(June 5, 1991).

III. Public Participation

The Agency originally published this

proposal as a direct final rule because it

viewed it as non-controversial and

anticipated no adverse public

comments. Because an adverse

comment was received, the direct final

rule amendments have been removed in

a separate action published elsewhere in

this issue of the Federal Register.

A. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA welcomes comments on all

aspects of this proposed rulemaking.

Commenters are especially encouraged

to give suggestions for changing any

aspects of the proposal. All comments,

with the exception of proprietary

information should be addressed to the

EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A–

93–46 (see ADDRESSES).

Commenters who wish to submit

proprietary information for
11140 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

consideration should clearly separate

such information from other comments

by (1) labeling proprietary information

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

and (2) sending proprietary information

directly to the contact person listed (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) and

not to the public docket. This will help

insure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket.

If a commenter wants EPA to use a

submission labeled as confidential

business information as part of the basis

for the final rule, then a nonconfidential

version of the document, which

summarizes the key data or information,

should be sent to the docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, the submission may be

made available to the public without

notifying the commenters.

B. Public Hearing

Anyone wishing to present testimony

about this proposal at the public hearing

(see DATES) should, if possible, notify

the contact person (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least five days

prior to the day of the hearing. The

contact person should be given an

estimate of the time required for the

presentation of testimony and

notification of any need for audio/visual

equipment. Testimony will be

scheduled on a first come, first served

basis. A sign-up sheet will be available

at the registration table the morning of

the hearing for scheduling those who

have not notified the contact earlier and

will be scheduled on a first come, first

served basis following the previously

scheduled testimony.

EPA requests that approximately 50

copies of the statement or material to be

presented be brought to the hearing for

distribution to the audience. In

addition, EPA would find it helpful to

receive an advanced copy of any

statement or material to be presented at

the hearing in advance of the scheduled

hearing date. This is to give EPA staff

adequate time to review such material

before the hearing. Advanced copies

should be submitted to the listed

contact person.

The official records of the hearing will

be kept open for 30 days following the

hearing to allow submission of rebuttal

and supplementary testimony. All such

submittals should be directed to the Air

Docket Section, Docket No. A–93–24

(see ADDRESSES). The hearing will be

conducted informally, and technical

rules of evidence will not apply. A

written transcript of the hearing will be

placed in the above docket for review.

Anyone desiring to purchase a copy of

the transcript should make individual

arrangements with the court reporter

recording the proceedings.

IV. Statutory Authority

Authority for the actions promulgated

in this final rule is granted to EPA by

sections 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208,

215, 216, 217, and 301(a), of the Clean

Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521,

7522, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7549,

7550, 7552, and 7601(a), and 5 U.S.C.

553(b)).

V. Administrative Designation

Under Executive Order 12866, the

Agency must determine whether the

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,

therefore, subject to OMB review 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, 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 loan 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.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of

19980 requires federal agencies to

identify potentially adverse impacts of

federal regulations upon small entities.

The Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

amended these requirements. In

instances where significant impacts are

possible on a substantial number of

these entities, agencies are required to

perform a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis.

The Agency has determined that this

action will not have an adverse impact

on small entities. Moreover, this

regulation does not create any new

regulatory requirements.

Therefore, under section 605 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., I certify that this regulation does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

VII. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirements

This regulation does not impose any

new information collection

requirements and results in no change

to the currently approved collection.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2060–0104.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that EPA prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by state,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act requires EPA to establish a

plan for obtaining input from and

informing, educating and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, EPA must identify and

consider a reasonable number of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 11141

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. EPA must select from those

alternatives the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is

expected to result in the expenditure by

state, local and tribal governments or

the private sector of less than $100

million in any one year, EPA has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement

or specifically addressed selection of the

least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative. Because small

governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this rule, EPA is

not required to develop a plan with

regard to small governments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 86

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: March 4, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, part 86 of chapter I, title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 86—CONTROL OF AIR

POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE

MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND INUSE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES:

CERTIFICATION AND TEST

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 202, 203, 205, 206, 207,

208, 215, 216, 217, and 301(a), of the Clean

Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522,

7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7549, 7550, 7552,

and 7601(a)).

§ 86.094–13 [Amended]

2. In § 86.094–13, paragraphs (a)(1),

(c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), and (f)(1) are

amended by revising the words ‘‘1994

through 1998’’ to read ‘‘1994 and

beyond’’.

§ 86.094–26 [Amended]

3. In § 86.094–26, paragraphs (a)(2),

(b)(2)(i), and (b)(2)(ii) are amended by

revising the words ‘‘1994 through 1998’’

to read ‘‘1994 and beyond’’.

[FR Doc. 97–5877 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 92

[FRL–5701–3]

Emission Standards for Locomotives

and Locomotive Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Public Hearing and

Additional Information.

SUMMARY: EPA is changing the date on

which it will hold the public hearing for

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) that proposed emission

standards for locomotives and

locomotive engines (published February

11, 1997, 62 FR 6365). EPA is also

providing public notice today of the

availability of additional information

regarding test procedures for

locomotives and locomotive engines.

DATES: A public hearing will be held on

April 18, 1997, starting at 10:00 a.m.

Persons wishing to present oral

testimony are requested to notify EPA

on or before April 11, 1997 to allow for

an orderly scheduling of oral testimony.

Written comments must be received on

or before May 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments are to be

addressed to: EPA Air and Radiation

Docket, Attention: Docket No. A–94–31,

Room M–1500, Mail Code 6102, U.S.

EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC

20460.

A public hearing for the NPRM will

be held at the Clarion Hotel (313–665–

4444), which is located at 2900 Jackson

Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information on this rulemaking contact:

Charles Moulis, U.S. EPA, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division,

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI

48105; Telephone: (313) 741–7826, Fax:

(313) 741–7816. Requests for hard

copies of the rulemaking documents

should be directed to Carol Connell at

(313) 668–4349.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Test Procedures

EPA proposed emissions standards

and test procedures for new locomotives

and new engines used in locomotives on

February 11, 1997 62 FR 6365. Today,

EPA is announcing the release of

additional test procedure information.

The Agency has determined that it

would be beneficial for the public to

made aware of this information, and

thus has placed copies of this

information in the public docket for this

rulemaking. Included in this

information is an EPA staff-level

document detailing a variation of the

proposed set of test procedures. This

variation is being considered by EPA

staff for incorporation in the final rule

for the control of emissions from new

locomotives and new engines used in

locomotives. It should be noted that the

information being made available today

is not expected to significantly affect

EPA’s assessment of the environmental

benefits or the cost of compliance.

Request for Comments

Interested parties may submit written

comments (in triplicate if possible) for

EPA consideration. The comments are

to be addressed to: EPA Air and

Radiation Docket, Attention: Docket No.

A–94–31, Room M–1500, Mail Code

6102, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington DC 20460. Should a

commenter wish to provide confidential

business information (CBI) to EPA, such

CBI should NOT be included with the

information sent to the docket. Materials

sent to the docket should, however,

indicate that CBI was provided to EPA.

One copy of CBI, along with the

remainder of the written comments,

should be sent to Charles Moulis at the

address provided in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

EPA will also accept oral comments at

the hearing for the previously published

NPRM. Any person desiring to present

testimony regarding this proposal at the

public hearing (see DATES) should, if

possible, notify the contact person listed

above of such intent at least seven days

prior to the day of the hearing to allow

for orderly scheduling of the testimony.

The contact person should also be

provided an estimate of the time

required for the presentation of the

testimony and notification of any need

for audio/visual equipment. It is

suggested that sufficient copies of the

statement or material to be presented be

brought to the hearing for distribution to

the audience. In addition, it will be

helpful for EPA to receive an advance

copy of any statement or material to be

presented at the hearing prior to the

scheduled hearing date, in order for

EPA staff to give such material full

consideration. Such advance copies

should be submitted to the contact

person listed above. The official record

of the hearing will be kept open for 30

days following the hearing to allow

submission of rebuttal and

supplementary testimony. All such

submittals should be directed to the

EPA Air Docket Section, Docket No. A–

94–31 (see ADDRESSES).

Availability of Documents

The additional test procedure

information, as well as the previously

published NPRM (and related

documents), are available in the public