Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14639

Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue,

NW., Washington, D.C. 20208-5530.

Telephone: (202) 219–2005. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339, between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

6, 1997, the Secretary published final

regulations amending EDGAR to

improve the selection criteria governing

discretionary grant programs

administered directly by the Department

(62 FR 10398). The effective date for

these final regulations is April 7, 1997.

However, some of the Department’s

grant programs, in preparing application

notices, planned to use the pre-existing

selection criteria for fiscal year 1997

awards. The Secretary did not intend

that these competitions be required to

use the new EDGAR selection criteria in

fiscal year 1997. The Secretary therefore

issues this interpretation of the

applicability of the revised regulations.

If a program publishes an application

notice prior to April 7, 1997, for awards

to be made after that date, the program

may use the revised EDGAR selection

criteria, or may use the prior EDGAR

criteria.

Waiver of Public Comment

In accordance with the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553), it is the practice of the Secretary

to offer interested parties the

opportunity to comment on proposed

rules. Public comment was previously

taken on the existing and revised

selection criteria in 34 CFR Part 75 that

are the subject of this notice. Moreover,

this notice interprets the applicability of

the respective selection criteria to grant

awards for fiscal year 1997. Therefore,

public comment is not required under 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Since this notice

corrects an error in failing to explain the

applicability of the revised regulations,

public comment also is unnecessary

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same

reasons, the Secretary waives the

requirement in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for a 30-

day delayed effective date.

Dated: March 24, 1997.

Judith A. Winston,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–7813 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 184–0031a FRL–5709–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Diego County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. This action

is an administrative change which

revises the definition of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and updates the

Exempt Compound list in rules from the

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District (SDCAPCD). The intended effect

of approving this action is to

incorporate changes to the definition of

VOC and to update the Exempt

Compound list in SDCAPCD rules to be

consistent with the revised federal and

state VOC definitions.

DATES: This action is effective on May

27, 1997 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 28,

1997. If the effective date is delayed, a

timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and

EPA’s evaluation report for these rules

are available for public inspection at

EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted

rules are available for inspection at the

following locations:

Rulemaking Office (Air-4), Air Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, CA

92123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(Air-4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules with definition revisions

being approved into the California SIP

include the following San Diego County

Air Pollution Control District Rules:

Rule 2, Definitions; Rule 67.0,

Architectural Coatings; Rule 67.1,

Alternative Emission Control Plans;

Rule 67.2, Dry Cleaning Equipment

Using Petroleum-Based Solvents; Rule

67.3, Metal Parts and Products Coating

Operations; Rule 67.5, Paper, Film, and

Fabric Coating Operations; Rule 67.7,

Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts; Rule

67.12, Polyester Resin Operations; Rule

67.15, Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic

Manufacturing Operations; 67.16,

Graphic Arts Operations; Rule 67.17,

Storage of Materials Containing Volatile

Organic Compounds; Rule 67.18,

Marine Coating Operations; and Rule

67.24, Bakery Ovens. These rules were

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on October 18,

1996.

Background

On June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31633) EPA

published a final rule excluding acetone

from the definition of VOC. On February

7, 1996 (61 FR 4588) EPA published a

final rule excluding perchloroethylene

from the definition of VOC. On May 1,

1996 (61 FR 19231) EPA published a

proposed rule excluding HFC 43–10mee

and HCFC 225ca and cb from the

definition of VOC. These compounds

were determined to have negligible

photochemical reactivity and thus, were

added to the Agency’s list of Exempt

Compounds.

The State of California submitted

many revised rules for incorporation

into its SIP on October 18, 1996,

including the rules being acted on in

this administrative action. This action

addresses EPA’s direct-final action for

SDCAPCD Rule 2, Definitions; Rule

67.0, Architectural Coatings; Rule 67.1,

Alternative Emission Control Plans;

Rule 67.2, Dry Cleaning Equipment

Using Petroleum-Based Solvents; Rule

67.3, Metal Parts and Products Coating

Operations; Rule 67.5, Paper, Film, and

Fabric Coating Operations; Rule 67.7,

Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts; Rule

67.12, Polyester Resin Operations; Rule

67.15, Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic

Manufacturing Operations; Rule 67.16,

Graphic Arts Operations; Rule 67.17,

Storage of Materials Containing Volatile

Organic Compounds; Rule 67.18,

Marine Coating Operations; and Rule

67.24, Bakery Ovens. These rules were

adopted by SDCAPCD on May 15, 1996

and were found to be complete on

December 19, 1996, pursuant to EPA’s
14640 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA 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).

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V 1 and are

being finalized for approval into the SIP.

This administrative revision adds

acetone, perchloroethylene, HFC 43–

10mee and HCFC 225ca and cb to the

list of compounds which make a

negligible contribution to tropospheric

ozone formulation. Thus, EPA is

finalizing the approval of the revised

definitions to be incorporated into the

California SIP for the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

EPA Evaluation and Action

This administrative action is

necessary to make the VOC definition in

SDCAPCD rules consistent with federal

and state definitions of VOC. This

action will result in more accurate

assessment of ozone formation

potential, will remove unnecessary

control requirements and will assist

States in avoiding exceedences of the

ozone health standard by focusing

control efforts on compounds which are

actual ozone precursors.

The SDCAPCD rules being affected by

this action to revise the definition of

VOC include:

• Rule 2 Definitions.

• Rule 67.0 Architectural Coatings.

• Rule 67.1 Alternative Emission

Control Plans.

• Rule 67.2 Dry Cleaning Equipment

Using Petroleum-Based Solvents.

• Rule 67.3 Metal Parts and

Products Coating Operations.

• Rule 67.5 Paper, Film and Fabric

Coating Operations.

• Rule 67.7 Cutback and Emulsified

Asphalts.

• Rule 67.12 Polyester Resin

Operations.

• Rule 67.15 Pharmaceutical and

Cosmetics Manufacturing Operations.

• Rule 67.16 Graphic Arts

Operations.

• Rule 67.17 Storage of Materials

Containing Volatile Organic

Compounds.

• Rule 67.18 Marine Coating

Operations.

• Rule 67.24 Bakery Ovens.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

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.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective May 27, 1997,

unless, by April 28, 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 action that will withdraw

the final action. All public comments

received will then 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 27, 1997.

Regulatory Process

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 sections 110 and

301(a) 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, I certify 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 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).

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (’’Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Part D of

the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind

State, local, and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements

because affected sources are already

subject to these regulations under State

law. Therefore, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments or to

the private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this final

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

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

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 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 the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. section 804(2).

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 Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 14641

Dated: February 26, 1997.

John Wise,

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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(241) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(241) New and amended regulations

for the following APCD were submitted

on October 18, 1996 by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporationed by reference.

(A) San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rules 2, Definitions; 67.0,

Architectural Coatings; 67.1, Alternative

Emission Control Plans; 67.2, Dry

Cleaning Equipment Using PetroleumBased Solvents; 67.3, Metal Parts and

Products Coating Operations; 67.5,

Paper, Film, and Fabric Coating

Operations; 67.7, Cutback and

Emulsified Asphalts; 67.12, Polyester

Resin Operations; 67.15, Pharmaceutical

and Cosmetic Manufacturing

Operations; 67.16, Graphic Arts

Operations; 67.17, Storage of Materials

Containing Volatile Organic

Compounds; 67.18, Marine Coating

Operations; and 67.24, Bakery Ovens,

adopted on May 15, 1996.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–7690 Filed 3–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[ME048–1–6997a; FRL–5802–3]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Correction of

Designation of Nonclassified Ozone

Nonattainment Areas; States of Maine

and New Hampshire

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA or Agency).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA announces its

decision to correct the ozone

designations for the Sullivan and

Belknap counties, New Hampshire

nonattainment areas, and the portions of

Oxford, Franklin and Somerset counties

in Maine designated nonattainment. The

USEPA is publishing the designation

correction of these areas to attainment/

unclassifiable for ozone, pursuant to

section 110(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act), which allows the USEPA to

correct its actions. The rationale for this

approval is set forth in this final rule;

additional information is available at

the address indicated below. In the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register, the USEPA is proposing

approval of and soliciting public

comment on this action. If adverse

comments are received on this direct

final rule, the USEPA will withdraw

this direct final rule and address the

comments received in a subsequent

final rule on the related proposed rule

which is being published in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register. No additional opportunity for

public comment will be provided.

Unless this direct final rule is

withdrawn no further rulemaking will

occur on this action.

DATES: This action will be effective May

27, 1997 unless notice is received by

April 28, 1997 that someone wishes to

submit adverse comments. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, Office

of Ecosystems Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., (CAA)

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at: Office of Ecosystems Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; the Bureau of Air

Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital

Street, Augusta, ME 04333; and the New

Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, 64 N. Main St.,

Concord, NH 03302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard P. Burkhart, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., (CAQ)

Boston, MA 02203. Phone: 617–565–

3578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

1. Background for Sullivan and Belknap

Counties, New Hampshire

Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to

the Clean Air Act (Act), the USEPA

designated nonattainment areas with

respect to the 0.08 parts per million

(ppm) photochemical oxidant National

Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). For such areas, states

submitted State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) to control emissions and achieve

attainment of the NAAQS. In New

Hampshire, an area named the

Merrimack Valley-Southern New

Hampshire Interstate Air Quality

Control Region (AQCR 121) was

designated as nonattainment for

photochemical oxidants on March 3,

1978 (43 FR 9013). On February 8, 1979

(44 FR 8202), the USEPA revised the

NAAQS from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm and

the regulated pollutant from

photochemical oxidants to ozone.

Subsequently, on May 29, 1979, New

Hampshire submitted a revised analysis

which considered the change in the

NAAQS and its affect on nonattainment

designations (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘the May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal’’).

The May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal requested that the New

Hampshire portion of the Merrimack

Valley-Southern New Hampshire

Interstate AQCR be designated

nonattainment, even though the Federal

ozone standard had changed, and there

were no ozone monitoring data from the

relevant portions of the AQCR. EPA

approved the request on April 11, 1980

(45 FR 24869). AQCR 121 includes

Belknap and Sullivan counties, along

with other areas in both New Hampshire

and Massachusetts whose attainment

classification and status will be

unchanged by this technical correction.

The May 1979, New Hampshire

submittal was based on the revised

Federal ozone standard of 0.12 ppm.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire did not

know the full extent of its ozone

nonattainment problems, because, there

were no monitors in either Belknap or

Sullivan counties. Ozone monitors for

AQCR 121 existed only in Keene,

Manchester, Nashua, and Portsmouth

during the period from 1973 to 1978.

These sites did experience exceedances

of the 0.12 ppm standard, but none are

close enough to either Belknap or

Sullivan county to indicate their air

quality.

Upon the date of enactment of the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act,

the New Hampshire portion of AQCR

121 retained its designation of

nonattainment by operation of law

pursuant to section 107(d). Pursuant to

the section 181(a), nonattainment areas

were further classified based on their

monitored design value, as marginal,

moderate, serious, severe or extreme.

The nonattainment areas in New

Hampshire were split into several