Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13329

have been modified even if accurate,

complete, and current cost data had

been submitted;

(ii) The FBI should have known that

the cost data at issue were defective

even though the carrier or subcontractor

took no affirmative action to bring the

character of the data to the attention of

the FBI;

(iii) The carrier or subcontractor did

not submit accurate cost data. Except as

prohibited, an offset in an amount

determined appropriate by the FBI

based upon the facts shall be allowed

against the cost reimbursement of an

agreement amount reduction if the

carrier certifies to the FBI that, to the

best of the carrier’s knowledge and

belief, the carrier is entitled to the offset

in the amount requested and the carrier

proves that the cost data were available

before the date of agreement on the cost

of the agreement (or cost of the

modification) and that the data were not

submitted before such date. An offset

shall not be allowed if the understated

data were known by the carrier to be

understated when the agreement was

signed; or the Government proves that

the facts demonstrate that the agreement

amount would not have increased even

if the available data had been submitted

before the date of agreement on cost; or

(4) In the event of an overpayment,

the carrier shall be liable to and shall

pay the United States at that time such

overpayment as was made, with simple

interest on the amount of such

overpayment to be computed from the

date(s) of overpayment to the carrier to

the date the Government is repaid by

the carrier at the applicable

underpayment rate effective for each

quarter prescribed by the Secretary of

the Treasury under 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2).

§ 100.20 Confidentiality of trade secrets/

proprietary information.

With respect to any information

provided to the FBI under this part that

is identified as company proprietary

information, it shall be treated as

privileged and confidential and only

shared within the government on a

need-to-know basis. It shall not be

disclosed outside the government for

any reason inclusive of Freedom of

Information requests, without the prior

written approval of the company.

Information provided will be used

exclusively for the implementation of

CALEA. This restriction does not limit

the government’s right to use the

information provided if obtained from

any other source without limitation.

§ 100.21 Alternative dispute resolution.

(a) If an impasse arises in negotiations

between the FBI and the carrier which

precludes the execution of a cooperative

agreement, the FBI will consider using

mediation with the goal of achieving, in

a timely fashion, a consensual

resolution of all outstanding issues

through facilitated negotiations.

(b) Should the carrier agree to

mediation, the costs of that mediation

process shall be shared equally by the

FBI and the carrier.

(c) Each mediation shall be governed

by a separate mediation agreement

prepared by the FBI and the carrier.

Dated: February 25, 1997.

Louis Freeh,

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Department of Justice.

[FR Doc. 97–7035 Filed 3–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NE 020–1020; FRL–5708–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Nebraska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: With this document, the EPA

is approving the Omaha lead emission

control plan submitted by the state of

Nebraska on August 28, 1996. This plan

was submitted by the state to satisfy

certain requirements under the Clean

Air Act (the Act) to reduce lead

emissions sufficient to bring portions of

the Omaha area into attainment with the

lead National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 21,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and

the EPA Air & Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua A. Tapp at (913) 551–7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

On January 6, 1992, the EPA

designated portions of Omaha

surrounding the Asarco, Incorporated

primary lead refinery as nonattainment

for the lead NAAQS. Specifically, the

boundaries for the nonattainment area

are: Avenue H and the Iowa-Nebraska

border on the north, the Missouri River

on the east, Eleventh Street on the west,

and Jones Street on the south. Pursuant

to the designation, the Act required the

state of Nebraska to submit an

attainment plan by July 6, 1993, which

would bring the area into attainment by

January 6, 1997.

On August 28, 1996, the state

submitted a plan to the EPA which

consists of Compliance Order (Case

Number) 1520 and associated work

practices. This plan meets the minimum

requirements of sections 110 and 172 of

the Act and in the ‘‘Addendum to the

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58 FR

67748). The rationale regarding the

EPA’s approval of this plan can be

found in the December 4, 1996, Federal

Register document (61 FR 64304)

proposing the EPA’s action on

Nebraska’s plan and in the technical

support document (TSD) for this action.

B. Response to Comments

The EPA received comments from

only one commentor. On January 3,

1997, the state of Nebraska submitted

the following two comments. The state

identified a typographical error made by

the EPA in its December 4, 1996,

proposal in subsection III.f.,

‘‘Contingency Measures.’’ Specifically,

the EPA’s discussion of Nebraska’s

prohibition on causing a violation of the

lead ambient air quality standard should

have referenced paragraph 19 of

Compliance Order (Case Number) 1520,

instead of paragraph 20.

The EPA agrees with this comment

and wishes to make one additional

correction. The EPA’s discussion of

street sweeping and production cuts in

the same subsection should have

referenced paragraph 18 of Compliance

Order (Case Number) 1520, instead of

paragraph 19.

The EPA has determined that the

proposal notice adequately described

the issues associated with the substance

of the referenced paragraphs. Therefore,

despite the incorrect references to

paragraph numbers in the proposal, the

EPA has determined that the proposal

gives adequate notice of the rationale for

the EPA’s proposed action on the two

paragraphs of the Compliance Order

referenced above.

In its second comment, the state

disagrees with the EPA’s proposed

nonaction on the provisions pertaining

to the direct enforcement of the lead

NAAQS contained in paragraph 19 of
13330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

the Compliance Order. In support of its

comment, the state points to certain

provisions of section 110 of the Act

which authorize the Administrator to

approve a broad spectrum of measures,

means, or techniques contained in the

state’s plan to the extent that they are

necessary and appropriate to meet the

applicable requirements under the Act.

Nebraska indicates that other states use

similar provisions to achieve

attainment. Nebraska also effectively

describes the difficulty in addressing

individual sources at a facility of this

nature through its traditional regulatory

process. Specifically, the large number

and variety of sources, the variability of

the emissions rates, the weather

dependent nature of fugitive emissions,

and the source’s desire for operational

flexibility make it difficult for the state

to develop regulations for this source

which are both protective of the NAAQS

and which are sufficiently flexible to

meet Asarco’s needs. According to the

state, paragraph 19 resolves this issue by

protecting the NAAQS while allowing

Asarco increased flexibility.

The EPA acknowledges the state’s

reasons for developing the provisions of

paragraph 19. However, the EPA’s

concerns regarding this provision

specifically relate to its general

enforceability and its inconsistency

with the criteria for contingency

measures contained in section 172(c)(9)

of the Act, and in the ‘‘Addendum to the

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (58 FR

67748). Specifically, paragraph 19 does

not require the source to implement

specific measures which reduce ambient

lead concentrations when a violation of

the standard occurs. The state’s remedy

for a violation of this paragraph is to

assess a penalty or to seek injunctive

relief. Neither of these options has a

direct impact on ambient lead

concentrations. As noted in the

proposal, other provisions of the Order

which require specific emission

reductions (if the NAAQS are violated)

are sufficient to meet the contingency

measure requirements in section

172(c)(9). Secondly, the state has not

defined the methods by which it will

demonstrate that Asarco is the sole

source of the ambient violation. Without

predefining such methods, successful

enforcement of paragraph 19 will be

difficult. For the reasons stated above,

and as explained in more detail in the

TSD for this action, the EPA will not

take action on paragraph 19 of

Compliance Order (Case Number) 1520

at this time.

II. Final Action

In this document, the EPA takes final

action to approve the Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality’s

Compliance Order (Case Number) 1520,

signed June 6, 1996, and Appendix A to

that Compliance Order entitled, ‘‘Work

Practices Manual.’’ Together, these

documents, submitted to the EPA on

August 28, 1996, comprise the

enforceable portion of the Nebraska

attainment plan. However, the EPA

takes no action on paragraph 19 of

Compliance Order (Case Number) 1520

for the reasons stated above.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

SIP approvals 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, 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

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs 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)).

III. 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 has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

B. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

C. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing this

rule and other required information to

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 19, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review, nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 13331

Dated: February 27, 1997.

U. Gale Hutton,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q.

Subpart CC—Nebraska

2. Section 52.1420 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(45) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(45) A revision to the Nebraska SIP to

reduce lead emissions in the Omaha

lead nonattainment area sufficient to

bring that area back into attainment

with the lead National Ambient Air

Quality Standard.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amended Complaint and

Compliance Order Case No. 1520,

signed June 6, 1996, except for

paragraph 19 and accompanying work

practice manual in Appendix A.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Supplemental document entitled,

‘‘Methods for Determining Compliance’’

submitted by the state to provide

additional detail regarding the

compliance methods for this Order.

[FR Doc. 97–7097 Filed 3–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WA59–7134a; FRL–5708-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Washington

State

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving in part

several minor revisions to the State of

Washington Implementation Plan (SIP)

and, at the same time, taking no action

on one section of this revision which is

unrelated to the purpose of the SIP.

Pursuant to section 110(a) of the Clean

Air Act (CAA), the Director of the

Washington Department of Ecology

(WDOE) submitted a request to EPA

dated August 6, 1996 to revise certain

regulations of a local air pollution

control agency, namely, the Puget

Sound Air Pollution Control Agency

(PSAPCA).

DATES: This action is effective on May

19, 1997 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 21,

1997. If the effective date is delayed,

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–

107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101. Copies of the SIP

revision request and other information

supporting this action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations: EPA,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101; and Washington State

Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond

Drive, Lacey, Washington 98504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Montel Livingston, Office of Air

Quality, EPA, (206) 553-0180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The August 6, 1996 submittal from

WDOE consisted of minor amendments

to PSAPCA Regulations I, II, and III. No

action will be taken on Regulation I

because it is unrelated to the purpose of

the SIP and unassociated with criteria

pollutants regulated under the SIP.

Regulation II, section 3.11, Coatings

and Ink Manufacturing, is amended to

maintain the stringency of the current

standard, while allowing those

operations consisting solely of

manufacturing low vapor pressure

coatings and inks to be exempt from

regulation. Manufacturers of low vapor

pressure coatings and inks contribute an

insignificant quantity of air pollutants to

the environment. This will have no

adverse impact upon air quality and is

approved as such. The amendments to

Regulation II were adopted by PSAPCA

on April 11, 1996 and became effective

on May 16, 1996.

Regulation III is being amended to

provide the regulated community with a

simpler, more concise chromium

electroplating and anodizing regulation

while incorporating the federal National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements.

This amendment revises the format of

the emission limit regulation and

specifies operating and maintainance

procedures, monitoring, recordkeeping,

and reporting for chromium

electroplating and anodizing facilities.

The amendments to Regulation III were

adopted by PSAPCA on June 13, 1996

and became effective on July 18, 1996.

The PSAPCA amendments submitted

by WDOE as SIP revisions are local air

pollution regulations which are at least

as stringent as the statewide rules of

WDOE. EPA has determined that these

minor SIP revisions comply with all

applicable requirements of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990.

II. Summary of Today’s Action

EPA is, by today’s action, approving

the following revisions submitted by

WDOE on August 6, 1996 as

amendments to the regulations of

PSAPCA and for inclusion into the SIP:

Regulation II, Section 3.11, Coatings and

Ink Manufacturing.

Regulation III, section 3.01, Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing.

EPA is taking no action on Regulation

I, section 3.03, General Regulatory

Orders, because it is unrelated to the

purpose of the SIP and unassociated

with criteria pollutants regulated under

the SIP.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as noncontroversial

amendments and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revisions should

adverse or critical comments be filed.

This action will be effective May 19,

1997 unless, by April 21, 1997, adverse

or critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective May 19, 1997.

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.