31398 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

(C) Staff gauger personnel refuse or

otherwise fail to follow any proper order

of a Customs officer or any Customs

order, rule, or regulation relative to

continued licensing as a Customsaccredited gauger;

(D) The gauger fails to operate in

accordance with the obligations of

paragraph (b) of this section;

(E) A determination is made that the

gauger is no longer technically or

operationally proficient at performing

the approved methods of measurement

for Customs purposes;

(F) The gauger fails to remit to

Customs, the Accounts Services

Division, within the 30 day billing

period the associated charges assessed

for the approval and the balance of the

fixed approval fee;

(G) The gauger fails to maintain its

bond; or

(H) The gauger fails to remit to

Customs, the Accounts Services

Division, within the 30 day billing

period the fixed reapproval fee.

(iii) Assessment of monetary

penalties. The assessment of a monetary

penalty under this section, may be in

lieu of, or in addition to, a suspension

or revocation of accreditation under this

section. The monetary penalty may not

exceed $100,000 per violation and shall

be assessed and mitigated pursuant to

published guidelines. Any monetary

penalty under this section can be in

addition to the recovery of any loss of

revenue or liquidated damages assessed

under the gauger’s Customs bond.

(2) Notice. When a decision to

suspend, revoke, and/or to assess a

monetary penalty is contemplated,

Customs shall immediately notify the

gauger in writing of the proposed action.

The notice of proposed action shall

contain a description of the grounds for

the proposed revocation, suspension,

and/or assessment of a monetary

penalty action, and advise the gauger of

the procedures for filing appeals.

(3) Appeal procedures. A Customsapproved gauger receiving a notice of

suspension or revocation of approval,

and/or of assessment of a monetary

penalty, and wishing to appeal the

decision, shall follow the appeal

procedures set forth in paragraph (e)(3)

of this section. An appeal to the Director

may contain an acceptance of

responsibility and may also provide

extenuating circumstances and/or

rebuttal evidence. Further, the appeal

may ask for a meeting with the Director

or his designee to discuss proposed

actions. Should the gauger fail to file an

appeal within the required time period,

the Director shall take actions to

implement the proposed suspension or

revocation and/or to collect the

monetary penalty assessed in the notice.

(4) Publication. All final notices of

suspension or revocation of a

commercial gauger’s approval, and/or

assessment of a monetary penalty will

be published in the Federal Register

and Customs Bulletin, giving the

effective date, duration, and scope of

each action.

4. In § 151.14, the first sentence is

amended by removing the words

‘‘ ‘sediment and water’ characteristic as

set out in § 151.13(a)(2)’’ and adding, in

its place, the words ‘‘analysis method

for crude petroleum contained in ASTM

D96 or other approved analysis

method’’.

Approved: May 6, 1998.

Samuel H. Banks,

Acting Commissioner of Customs.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 98–15336 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6106–3]

RIN 2060–A100

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum

Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

revisions to the ‘‘National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:

Petroleum Refineries,’’ which was

issued as a final rule on August 18,

1995. This rule is commonly known as

the Petroleum Refineries national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP). This action

proposes to revise the date by which the

Implementation Plan for emissions

averaging is to be submitted. This action

also proposes an exemption for specific

hydrogen plant vent streams from the

miscellaneous process vent

requirements. Because the revisions do

not alter the intended applicability,

stringency, or schedule of the NESHAP,

the EPA does not anticipate receiving

adverse comments. Consequently, the

revisions are also being issued as a

direct final rule in the final rules section

of this Federal Register. If no relevant

adverse comments are timely received,

no further action will be taken with

respect to this proposal and the direct

final rule will become final on the date

provided in that action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before July 9, 1998.

Additionally, a hearing will be

convened if requests to speak are

received by June 24, 1998. If a hearing

is held, it will take place on July 1, 1998

beginning at 10:00 a.m. and the record

on the hearing will remain open for 30

days after the hearing to provide an

opportunity for submission of rebuttal

and supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

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.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at: A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

A–93–48. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

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 or at an

alternate site nearby. 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 NESHAP and this action,

is available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA’s

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31399

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: On August

18, 1995, EPA promulgated the

‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum

Refineries’’ (the ‘‘Petroleum Refineries

NESHAP’’). The NESHAP regulates

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted

from new and existing refineries that are

major sources of HAP emissions. The

regulated category and entities affected

by this action include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Industry ......... Petroleum Refineries (Standard Industrial Classification

Code 2911).

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive but, rather, provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

interested in the revisions to the

regulation affected by this action. To

determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine all of the applicability

criteria in 40 CFR 63.640. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the appropriate person listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

If no relevant, 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

relevant adverse comments are received,

a timely document will be published

withdrawing the direct final rule. 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.

Administrative Requirements

A. 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

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, 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 does not alter

the stringency or schedule of the

Petroleum Refineries NESHAP or the

ability of regulating authorities to

ensure compliance with the NESHAP,

this rule was classified ‘‘nonsignificant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and, therefore was not reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NESHAP were submitted

to and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et.seq. A copy of this Information

Collection Request (ICR) document

(OMB Control Number 2060–0340) may

be obtained from the Information Policy

Branch (PY–223Y); U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW;

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740. The ICR is currently in

the reinstatement process.

Today’s proposed changes to the

NESHAP have no impact on the

information collection burden estimates.

The changes regarding emissions

averaging consist of a revision to the

date by which an Implementation Plan

is to be submitted. Because the industry

and the EPA were not aware of the

hydrogen plant vent streams that may

meet the current Group 1 miscellaneous

process vent provisions, information

collection activities associated with

these vents were not included in the

burden estimate. Today’s revisions do

not increase or decrease the information

collection burden on the regulated

community or the EPA. Consequently,

the ICR has not been revised.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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 will not have a significant

negative impact on a substantial number

of small entities because it does not add

any requirements to the Petroleum

Refineries NESHAP. This rule revises a

submittal date for a report and provides

an exemption for specific vent streams.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective,

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising
31400 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 /Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

At the time of promulgation, 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 revise the date by which a

report is due and provide an exemption

for specific vent streams. Thus, today’s

proposed rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 12875

To reduce the burden of Federal

regulations on States and small

governments, the President issued

Executive Order 12875 entitled

‘‘Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership’’ on October 26, 1993.

Executive Order 12875 prohibits the

EPA, to the extent feasible and

permitted by law, from promulgating

any regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon

a State, local or tribal government

unless: (i) The Federal Government

provides the funds necessary to pay the

direct costs incurred by the State, local

or tribal government in complying with

the mandate; or, (ii) EPA provides to the

Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of the EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of those entities

concerns, any written communications

submitted to EPA by such units of

government and the EPA’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. Executive Order 12875

further requires the EPA to develop an

effective process to permit elected

officials and other representatives of

State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’ This rule does not create a

mandate upon State, local or tribal

governments.

F. Applicability of Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that EPA determines (1)

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the EPA must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the EPA.

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not address an

environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on

children.

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: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15006 Filed 6–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition To List the Lesser PrairieChicken as Threatened and Designate

Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) announces a 12-month finding

for a petition to list the lesser prairiechicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus)

under the Endangered Species Act of

1973 as amended. After review of all

available scientific and commercial

information, the Service finds that

listing this species is warranted but

precluded by other higher priority

actions to amend the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants. The lesser prairie-chicken is

added to the Service’s candidate species

list.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on June 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 222 S. Houston, Suite A, Tulsa,

Oklahoma, 74127. The petition finding,

supporting data, and comments are

available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry

Brabander, Field Supervisor, Oklahoma

Ecological Services Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 918/581–

7458 ext. 224, facsimile 918/581–7467).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for

any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that contains substantial

scientific and commercial information,

the Service make a finding within 12

months of the receipt of the petition on

whether the petitioned action is: (a) not

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)

warranted but precluded from

immediate proposal by other pending

proposals of higher priority. Information

contained in this notice is a summary of

the information in the 12-month

finding, which is the Service’s decision

document. When a petition to list a

species is found to be warranted but

precluded, the species is designated a

candidate species. A candidate species

is a taxon for which the Service has on

file sufficient information to support

issuance of a proposed listing rule.

Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires that a

petition for which the requested action

is found to be warranted but precluded

be treated as though it has been

resubmitted on the date of such finding;

a subsequent finding is to be made on

such a petition within 12 months of the

initial or previous finding. Notices of

such 12-month findings are to be

published promptly in the Federal

Register.

On October 6, 1995, the Service

received a petition, dated October 5,

1995, from the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, Boulder, Colorado and

Marie E. Morrissey (petitioners). The

petitioners requested that the Service

list the lesser prairie-chicken as

threatened throughout its known

historic range in the United States, and

that critical habitat be designated as

soon as needs of the species are

sufficiently well known. However, from

October 1995 through April 1996,

funding for the Service’s listing program

was severely reduced or eliminated and

the Service was unable to act on the

petition.

The Service made a 90-day finding

that the petition presented substantial

information indicating that the