4188 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

agency personnel and, thus, is exempt

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). However,

the Department believes the public

should have an opportunity to comment

on this rescission before it is adopted as

a final rule. Among concerns and

questions that reviewers may wish to

consider are: the appropriateness and

ethical implications of allowing

employees to appeal certain Forest

Service decisions; the potential impact

of employee appeals on the process of

permit administration; and the potential

impact of allowing employee appeals on

the delivery of goods and services from

the National Forest System.

Regulatory Impact

This interim final rule has been

reviewed under USDA procedures and

Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory

Planning and Review. It has been

determined that this is not a significant

rule. This action consists of

administrative changes to regulations

that would allow employee appeals of

agency projects and activities under 36

CFR part 215. This interim final rule

will not have an annual effect of $100

million or more on the economy nor

adversely affect productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, nor State or local

governments. Also, this rule will not

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency or raise new

legal or policy issues. In short, little or

no effect on the national economy will

result from this interim final rule.

Finally, this action will not alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients of

such programs. Accordingly, this

interim final rule is not subject to OMB

review under Executive Order 12866.

Moreover, this interim final rule has

been considered in light of the

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

et seq.), and it is hereby certified that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as defined by

that Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.

1531–1538), the Department has

assessed the effects of this rule on State,

local, and tribal governments and the

private sector. This rule does not

compel the expenditure of $100 million

or more by any State, local, or tribal

government or anyone in the private

sector. Therefore, a statement under

section 202 of the Act is not required.

Environmental Impact

Section 31.1b of Forest Service

Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR 43180;

September 18, 1992) excludes from

documentation in an environmental

assessment or impact statement ‘‘rules,

regulations, or policies to establish

Service-wide administrative procedures,

program processes, or instructions.’’ The

agency’s assessment is that this rule

falls within this category of actions and

that no extraordinary circumstances

exist which would require preparation

of an environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement.

No Takings Implications

This interim final rule has been

analyzed in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12630, and it has been

determined that the rule does not pose

the risk of a taking of Constitutionallyprotected private property. There are no

Constitutionally-protected private

property rights to be affected, since the

regulation applies only to agency

employees.

Civil Justice Reform Act

This interim final rule has been

reviewed under Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform. This interim final

rule (1) preempts all State and local

laws and regulations that are in conflict

or which would impede its full

implementation, (2) has no retroactive

effect, and (3) does not require

administrative proceedings before

parties may file suit in court challenging

its provisions.

Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the

Public

This interim final rule does not

contain any recordkeeping or reporting

requirements or other information

collection requirements as defined in 5

CFR 1320 and, therefore, imposes no

paperwork burden on the public.

Accordingly, the review provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and

implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320 do not apply.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 215

Administrative practice and

procedures, National forests.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in

the preamble, part 215 of Title 36 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is

amended, as follows:

PART 215—NOTICE, COMMENT, AND

APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES

1. The authority citation for part 215

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 472, 551; sec. 322,

Pub. L. 102–381, 106 Stat. 1419 (16 U.S.C.

1612 note).

§ 215.11 [Amended]

2. Amend § 215.11 to revise paragraph

(c) and add a new paragraph (d) to read

as follows:

§ 215.11 Who may participate in appeals.

* * * * *

(c) Federal agencies may not

participate as appellants or interested

parties.

(d) Federal employees filing appeals

under this part shall comply with

Federal conflict of interest statutes at 18

U.S.C. 202–209 and with employee

ethics requirements at 5 CFR part 2635.

Specifically, employees shall not be on

official duty or use government property

or equipment in the preparation or

transmittal of an appeal. Employees also

shall not use official information not yet

released to the public.

Dated: January 22, 1998.

Brian Eliot Burke,

Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources

and Environment.

[FR Doc. 98–2043 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH58–1a; FRL–5954–6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

approving as a revision to the Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP) a rate-ofprogress plan for the purpose of

reducing volatile organic compounds

(VOC) emissions in the Ohio portion of

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area by 15

percent by November 15, 1996. The plan

and regulations will help to protect the

public’s health and welfare by reducing

the VOC emissions that contribute to the

formation of ground-level ozone,

commonly known as urban smog.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA

is proposing approval and soliciting

comment on this action; if written
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4189

adverse comments (not previously

addressed) are received on the approval

of the rate-of-progress plan, EPA will

withdraw the direct final approval of

the plan and address the comments

received in a new final rule. Unless this

direct final is withdrawn, no further

rulemaking will occur on this requested

SIP revision.

DATES: This rule is effective March 30,

1998 unless EPA receives adverse or

critical comments by February 27, 1998.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air and Radiation

Division, Air Programs Branch (AR–

18J), Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available at the above

address for public inspection during

normal business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Jones, Environmental Scientist

at (312) 886–6058 and Francisco

Acevedo, Environmental Protection

Specialist at (312) 886–6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on Rate-of-Progress and

Contingency Plan Requirement

On November 15, 1990, Congress

enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean

Air Act (CAA); Pub. L. 101–549, 104

Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q.

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act

requires moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas to submit plans to

reduce their VOC emissions by 15

percent by 1996. These plans are

referred to as 15 percent rate of progress

(15% ROP) plans. These plans were due

to be submitted to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) by November

15, 1993. In Ohio, these plans were due

for the Toledo, Dayton-Springfield,

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain areas, and the

Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton

Moderate ozone nonattainment area.

On November 12, 1993, Ohio

submitted 15% plans for the Toledo,

Dayton-Springfield, Cleveland-AkronLorain, and the Ohio portion of the

Cincinnati-Hamilton areas. EPA

reviewed these plans to determine if

they satisfied the completeness criteria

so that the rulemaking process could

begin. On January 21, 1994, EPA

notified Ohio that EPA was making a

finding of incompleteness on the 15%

ROP plan submittals and starting a clock

for imposing sanctions in these areas. In

order to stop this clock the State had to

submit a complete 15% ROP plan for

the State’s moderate ozone

nonattainment areas.

On March 14, 1994, OEPA Director

Schregardus submitted Ohio’s 15% ROP

plans, along with several other State

Implementation Plan revisions, to EPA.

Only the 15% ROP plan for the Ohio

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

is subject to this approval. The

requirements for a 15% ROP plan in the

Toledo and Dayton-Springfield areas

were no longer applicable after these

areas were redesignated as ozone

attainment areas, see 60 FR 39115

(dated August 1, 1995) and 60 FR 22289

(dated May 5, 1995). The 15% ROP plan

requirement for the Cleveland-AkronLorain area was determined to be

fulfilled since the area reached

attainment and, therefore, no further

emissions reductions were necessary to

reach attainment of the ozone air quality

standard. See 61 FR 20458 (dated May

7, 1996).

The 15% ROP plans submitted by

OEPA on March 14, 1994, were found

complete by EPA on August 8, 1994, in

a letter to the State of Ohio. The

completeness review of the plans is

contained in an EPA memorandum

dated May 12, 1994, a copy of which

can be found in the docket.

II. Review Criteria

The requirements for a 15% ROP plan

and its contents are found in Section

182(b)(1) of the CAA and the following

EPA documents:

1. Procedures for Preparing Emissions

Projections, EPA–450/4–91–019, July

1991.

2. State Implementation Plans;

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed

rule (57 FR 13498), Federal Register,

April 16, 1992.

3. ‘‘November 15, 1992, Deliverables

for RFP and modeling Emission

Inventories,’’ Memorandum from J.

David Mobley, Edwin L. Meyer, and G.

T. Helms, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, August 7, 1992.

4. Guidance on the Adjusted Base

Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996

Target for the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–92–005,

October 1992.

5. ‘‘Quantification of Rule

Effectiveness Improvements,’’

Memorandum from G. T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 1992.

6. Guidance for Growth Factors,

Projections, and Control Strategies for

the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,

EPA–452/R–93–002, March 1993.

7. ‘‘Correction to ‘Guidance on the

Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory

and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent

Rate of Progress Plans’,’’ Memorandum

from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

March 2, 1993.

8. ‘‘15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans,’’ Memorandum from G.T. Helms,

Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, March 16, 1993.

9. Guidance on the Relationship

Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean

Air Act, EPA–452/R–93–007,

Environmental Protection Agency, May

1993.

10. ‘‘Credit Toward the 15 Percent

Rate-of-Progress Reductions from

Federal Measures,’’ G. T. Helms, Chief

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, May 6, 1993.

11. Guidance on Preparing

Enforceable Regulations and

Compliance Programs for the 15 Percent

Rate-of-Progress Plans, EPA–452/R–93–

005, Environmental Protection Agency,

June 1993.

12. ‘‘Correction Errata to the 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance

Series,’’ G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,

July 28, 1993.

13. ‘‘Early Implementation of

Contingency Measures for Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment

Areas,’’ G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,

August 13, 1993.

14. ‘‘Region III Questions on Emission

Projections for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans,’’ Memorandum from

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

August 17, 1993.

15. ‘‘Guidance on Issues Related to 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,’’

Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

August 23, 1993.

16. ‘‘Credit Toward the 15 Percent

Requirements from Architectural and

Industrial Maintenance Coatings,’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, September 10,

1993.

17. ‘‘Reclassification of Areas to

Nonattainment and 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans,’’ John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, September 20, 1993.
4190 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

18. ‘‘Clarification of ‘Guidance for

Growth Factors, Projections and Control

Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plans’,’’ Memorandum from

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

Environmental Protection Agency,

October 6, 1993.

19. ‘‘Review and Rulemaking on 15

Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,’’

Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,

Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs

Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, October 6, 1993.

20. ‘‘Questions and Answers from the

15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan

Workshop,’’ G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,

October 29, 1993.

21. ‘‘Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance

on the 15 Percent Calculations,’’ D. Kent

Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, October 29, 1993.

22. ‘‘Clarification of Issues Regarding

the Contingency Measures that are due

November 15, 1993 for Moderate and

Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas,’’ D.

Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality

Management Division, November 8,

1993.

23. ‘‘Credit for 15 percent Rate-ofProgress Plan Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule,’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, December 9,

1993.

24. ‘‘Guidance on Projection of

Nonroad Inventories to Future Years,’’

Memorandum from Philip A. Lorang,

Director, Emission Planning and

Strategies Division, Office of Air and

Radiation, Environmental Protection

Agency, February 4, 1994.

25. ‘‘Discussion at the Division

Directors’ Meeting on June 1 Concerning

the 15 Percent and 3 Percent

Calculations,’’ Memorandum from G.T.

Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide

Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Environmental

Protection Agency, June 2, 1994.

26. ‘‘Future Nonroad Emission

Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered

Nonroad Standards,’’ Memorandum

from Philip A. Lorang, Director,

Emission Planning and Strategies

Division, Office of Air and Radiation,

Environmental Protection Agency,

November 28, 1994.

27. ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and

the Autobody Refinishing Rule,’’ John S.

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, November 29,

1994.

28. ‘‘Transmittal of Rule Effectiveness

Protocol for 1996 Demonstrations,’’

Memorandum from Susan E. Bromm,

Director, Chemical, Commercial

Services and Municipal Division, Office

of Compliance, Environmental

Protection Agency, December 22, 1994.

29. ‘‘Future Nonroad Emission

Reduction Credits for Locomotives,’’

Memorandum from Philip A. Lorang,

Director, Emission Planning and

Strategies Division, Office of Air and

Radiation, Environmental Protection

Agency, January 3, 1995.

30. ‘‘Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule,’’ John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, March 22,

1995.

31. ‘‘Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress

Plans—Additional Guidance,’’ John S.

Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, May 5, 1995.

32. ‘‘Update on the credit for the 15

percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for

Reductions from the Architectural and

Industrial maintenance coatings rule,’’

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, March

7, 1996.

33. ‘‘Date by which States Need to

Achieve all the Reductions Needed for

the 15% Plan from Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) and Guidance for

Recalculation,’’ memorandum from

Margo Oge, Director, Office of Mobile

Sources, and John S. Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Environmental Protection

Agency, August 13, 1996.

34. ‘‘Modeling 15 Percent Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) Reduction(s)

from I/M in 1999: Supplemental

Guidance,’’ memorandum from Gay

MacGregor, Director, Regional and State

Programs Division, and Sally Shaver,

Director, Air Quality Strategies and

Standards Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, December 23, 1996.

35. ‘‘15% Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC) State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Approvals and the ‘As Soon As

Practicable’ Test,’’ memorandum from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, and

Richard B. Ossias, Deputy Associate

General Counsel, Division of Air and

Radiation, Office of General Counsel,

Environmental Protection Agency,

February 12, 1997.

Section 182(b)(1) requires that the

ROP plan provide for a 15 percent

reduction in base line emissions of

VOCs, accounting for any growth in

emissions after 1990. Section 182(b)(1)

also allows an area to reduce its

emissions by a percentage less than 15

percent provided that (1) the State

demonstrates that the area requires new

source review provisions to the same

extent as required in Extreme Areas,

except that the definition of a major

source is lowered to sources with a

potential to emit 5 tons per day of

VOCs; (2) Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) is required for all

existing major stationary sources; and

(3) the plan includes all measures that

can feasibly be implemented in the area,

in light of technological achievability.

To qualify for a percentage less than 15

percent, a State must demonstrate to the

satisfaction of the EPA that the plan for

the area includes the measures that are

achieved in practice by sources in the

same source category in nonattainment

areas of the next higher category.

The CAA also provides details on

calculating the 15 percent emissions

reduction. The CAA defines the base

line emissions to be the total amount of

actual VOC emissions from all

anthropogenic sources in the area

during the calendar year of 1990,

excluding emissions that would be

eliminated under any Federal Motor

Vehicle Emissions Control Program

(FMVECP) measures promulgated by

EPA by January 1, 1990, and any Reid

Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations

promulgated by EPA by November 15,

1990 or required to be promulgated

under section 211 of the Act. This is

further explained in EPA’s General

Preamble at 57 FR 13498.

Section 182(b)(1) allows emissions

reductions to be creditable except for

the RVP and FMVECP programs

mentioned above, any measures

requiring corrections to motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance programs

required to be submitted immediately

after enactment, and corrections to the

States VOC RACT rules that were

required by section 182(a)(2)(A)

concerning RACT fix-up requirements.

In general, emissions reductions are

creditable toward the ROP emissions

reduction to the extent they have

actually occurred, as of 6 years after

November 15, 1990, resulting from the

implementation of measures required

under the applicable implementation

plan, rules promulgated by the

Administrator, or a permit issued under

Title V.

In addition, section 172(C)(9) requires

that the plan provide for the

implementation of specific measures to

be undertaken if the area fails to make

reasonable further progress, or to attain

the national primary ambient air quality

standard by the applicable attainment

date. Such measures shall be included
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4191

in the plan revision as contingency

measures.

III. Review of the 15% ROP Plan

EPA compared the State’s submittal

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and Agency policy and

guidance. A summary of this analysis is

provided below.

A. Emission Inventory

Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) of the

Act require that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive,

accurate, current inventory of actual

emissions from all sources of relevant

pollutants in the nonattainment area.

This inventory provides an estimate of

the amount of VOC, carbon monoxide

and oxides of nitrogen produced by

emissions sources such as automobiles,

powerplants, and the use of consumer

solvents in the household. On December

7, 1995, EPA approved Ohio’s 1990 base

year inventory for the CincinnatiHamilton area. For specific details of the

final rulemaking, see 60 FR 62737.

Therefore, the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

has a comprehensive, accurate, current

inventory of actual emissions from all

sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area.

The 1990 base year emissions

inventory required by section 182(a)

was submitted to EPA at the same time

that the 15 percent ROP plan was

submitted for the Cincinnati-Hamilton

area, in March of 1994. The base year

emissions inventory was later modified

by the State based on EPA comments.

The modified inventory resulted in a

higher level of estimated VOC emissions

in 1990. The State based its 15% ROP

plan on its emissions inventory that was

submitted in March of 1994. The State

will not be required to revise the 15%

ROP plan at this time to account for a

revised 1990 base year level of VOC

emissions. If the State were required to

go back and adjust its 15% ROP plan

whenever something changes in the

base year emissions inventory, it would

result in a moving emissions reduction

target that the State would have to try

to meet by continually adjusting the

control measures being relied on. This

would result in a significant delay in

developing 15% ROP plans. This is not

a reasonable expectation for areas that

are required to prepare the 15% ROP

plans, and, accordingly, EPA is not

requiring that the State change its 15%

ROP plan at this time.

B. Calculation of the Adjusted Base

Year Inventory

The Act specifies the emission

baseline from which the 15 percent

reduction is calculated. This baseline

value is termed the 1990 adjusted base

year inventory. Section 182(b)(1)(D)

excludes from the baseline the

emissions that would be eliminated by

FMVECP regulations promulgated by

January 1, 1990, and RVP regulations

(55 FR 23666, June 11, 1990)

promulgated by EPA prior to November

15, 1990, which limit the volatility of

gasoline in nonattainment areas during

the peak ozone season. The FMVECP

provides requirements that automobile

manufacturers must meet in building

new automobiles. These requirements

result in automobiles being

manufactured today that produce less

pollution compared to cars

manufactured years ago.

The adjusted base year inventory is

determined by starting with the base

year 1990 emission inventory (which is

described under A. above), and then

removing all biogenic emissions as well

as emissions from sources located

outside of the designated nonattainment

boundary. The resulting inventory is

termed the 1990 rate-of-progress base

year inventory. The 1990 rate-ofprogress base year inventory is then

adjusted by removing the expected

FMVECP and RVP reductions in order

to derive the adjusted base year

inventory. As specified by EPA’s

General Preamble, see 57 FR 13507,

emission credits banked preenactment

were not included in the emissions

inventories.

Ohio used EPA’s MOBILE5a emission

factor model to calculate its adjusted

base year inventory. The documentation

includes actual 1990 motor vehicle

emissions using 1990 vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and MOBILE5a emission

factors, and the adjusted emissions

using 1990 VMT and the MOBILE5a

emission factors in calendar year 1996

with the appropriate RVP for the

nonattainment area as required by EPA.

Provided in table 1 is a summary of

the results of the emissions calculations

used to determine the required 15

percent ROP plan reduction.

TABLE 1.—CALCULATIONS SUMMARY

Rate of progress summary for the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

Calculation of reduction needs by 1996 VOC emissions

(tons/day)

1990 Cincinnati-Hamilton VOC Emissions .................................................................................................................................... 383.40

1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Emissions Inventory (Anthropogenic Only) ........................................................................... 273.51

Noncreditable Emission Reductions from FMVECP and RVP expected by 1996 ........................................................................ 58.57

1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory (minus RVP and FMVECP) ................................................................................................. 214.94

15 percent of Adjusted Base Year Emissions ............................................................................................................................... 32.24

1990–1996 Noncreditable Emission Reductions from corrections to VOC RACT rules and the required Basic Automobile Inspection/Maintenance program .................................................................................................................................................. 4.80

Total expected emissions reductions by 1996 .............................................................................................................................. 95.61

1996 Target Level of Emissions .................................................................................................................................................... 177.90

Estimated 1996 Emissions (Anthropogenic), including growth ..................................................................................................... 225.89

REQUIRED REDUCTIONS BY 1996 TO MEET THE 15 PERCENT RATE OF PROGRESS REQUIREMENTS ...................... 47.99

Control Measures Used to Meet ROP VOC emissions

(tons/day)

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery ................................................................................................................................................ 4.29

Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance (E-Check) .................................................................................................... 18.80

NESHAP for reducing coke by product Benzene emissions ........................................................................................................ 20.06

Enforcement Cases ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.85

Architectural Coatings .................................................................................................................................................................... 4.00

TOTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 48.00

CONTINGENCY EMISSIONS REDUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 7.01
4192 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

C. Required VOC Emission Reductions

The 1990 adjusted base year inventory

is multiplied by 0.15 to calculate 15%

of the adjusted base year emissions.

Therefore, to meet the rate-of-progress

requirement, Ohio’s plan must provide

for at least a 32.24 tons per day (TPD)

reduction in VOC emissions, in addition

to the reduction needed to offset growth.

Under section 182(b)(1)(D) of the Act,

the following reductions are not

creditable toward the rate-of-progress

reductions: (1) FMVECP regulations

promulgated by January 1, 1990; (2) RVP

regulations promulgated by EPA before

enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act

amendments; (3) certain corrections to

VOC RACT rules (which require

controls on certain industrial

operations); and (4) corrections to basic

automobile inspection and maintenance

programs. Thus, the total expected

reductions are comprised of the

reductions necessary to meet the ROP

requirement and the expected emissions

reductions from the four noncreditable

programs just described. The total

expected emissions reductions are 95.61

TPD.

The amount of reduction necessary to

meet the contingency plan requirement

is 3 percent of the adjusted base year

inventory. Therefore, the adjusted base

year inventory is multiplied by 0.03 to

calculate the amount of required

reduction for the contingency plan

requirement. Therefore, to meet the

contingency requirement, the State’s

plan must provide for at least a 6.45

TPD reduction in VOC emissions, in

addition to the other emissions

reduction measures. Ohio has

documented the correct amount for the

total expected reductions in the

nonattainment area by showing each

step used in the calculations. The 1996

target level of VOC emissions is the

1990 ROP base year inventory minus the

total expected emission reductions.

D. Projected Emission Inventory

Emission projections for sources

within an air basin are needed to

determine if the rate-of-progress

requirements in the Act are met and to

determine if the area will attain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment

date. The purpose of projecting the

emission inventories into the future is

not solely to predict what is likely to

happen without additional controls, but

also to gauge the ability of the

regulations in the control strategy to

meet the ROP goals.

Growth factors are not included in the

calculations of the 1990 adjusted base

year inventory or the 1996 target level

of emissions. Growth factors are needed,

however, to project emissions to 1996

for the ROP demonstration as part of the

ROP plan.

The State calculated the point source

emissions growth based on earnings

data obtained from the Bureau of

Economic Analysis. The point source

growth factors ranged from a 4 percent

decrease to a 5 percent increase per

year. Area source emissions were

projected based on population,

industrial employment, and state

gasoline consumption growth. The

annual population growth factors for the

four Ohio counties range from 0.1

percent to 1.6 percent. Industrial

employment is projected to decrease by

about 0.1 percent per year. The State

gasoline consumption is estimated to

decrease by about 8 percent from 1990

to 1996. The VMT were projected to

grow from 25,671,581 miles per day in

1990 to 27,586,074 miles per day in

1996. This is a 7.46 percent increase in

VMT over 6 years. These are acceptable

growth estimates. Total estimated 1996

VOC emissions including growth was

calculated as 225.89 TPD. Mobile source

emissions account for 80.32 TPD of the

total emissions.

E. Required Emissions Reduction

The required VOC emissions

reduction to meet the 15% ROP

requirements is 47.99 TPD. This is the

difference between the estimated 1996

emissions with growth and no

additional controls and the 1996 target

level of emissions.

F. Control Measures

The revision submitted by the State

lists a series of control measures

projected to achieve a 48.0 TPD

reduction in VOC emissions. See the

table below for a list of the measures

and their status. The table does not

include any Federal measures used to

reduce the mobile source emissions.

These reductions are already accounted

for in the MOBILE5a emissions model

that in combination with the projected

VMT for the area was used to estimate

the future emissions for the area.

Enhanced I/M Program

Of the 15% ROP plans originally

submitted to EPA, most contain

enhanced I/M programs because they

achieve more VOC emission reductions

than most, if not all, other control

strategies. However, because most States

experienced substantial difficulties

implementing enhanced I/M programs,

only a few States are currently actually

testing cars using the original enhanced

I/M protocol.

On September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029),

EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced

I/M rule allowing States significant

flexibility in designing I/M programs

appropriate for their needs. Further,

Congress enacted the National Highway

Systems Designation Act of 1995

(NHSDA), which provides States with

more flexibility in determining the

design of enhanced I/M programs. The

substantial amount of time needed by

States to re-design enhanced I/M

programs in accordance with the final

enhanced I/M rules and/or the guidance

contained within the NHSDA, to secure

State legislative approval when

necessary, and set up the infrastructure

to perform the testing program has

precluded States from obtaining

emission reductions from enhanced I/M

by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many

States on enhanced I/M programs to

help satisfy 15% ROP plan

requirements, and the recent NHSDA

and regulatory changes regarding

enhanced I/M programs, EPA has

recognized that it is not possible for

many States to achieve the portion of

the 15% ROP reductions that are

attributed to enhanced I/M by

November 15, 1996. Under these

circumstances, disapproval of the 15%

ROP plan State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) would serve no purpose.

Consequently, under certain

circumstances, EPA will allow States

that pursue re-design of enhanced I/M

programs to receive emission reduction

credit from these programs in their 15%

ROP plans, even though the emission

reductions from the I/M program will

occur after November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will approve

15% ROP SIPs if the emission

reductions from the revised, enhanced I/

M programs, as well as from the other

15% ROP plan measures, will achieve

the 15% level as soon after November

15, 1996, as practicable. To make this

‘‘as soon as practicable’’ determination,

the EPA must determine that the 15%

ROP plan contains all VOC control

strategies that are practicable for the

nonattainment area in question and that

meaningfully accelerate the date by

which the 15% level is achieved. The

EPA does not believe that measures

meaningfully accelerate the 15% date if

they provide only a relatively small

amount of reductions.

The Enhanced I/M program (E-Check)

began operation in the CincinnatiHamilton area in January 1996. The

program is a biennial testing program

which requires two years of testing to

complete one test cycle. The program

will not achieve its full emissions

reduction potential until the cycle is
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4193

1This analysis was based on the methodology

specified in EPA’s policy memoranda, ‘‘Date by

Which States Need to Achieve All the Reductions

Needed for the 15% Plan from I/M and Guidance

for Recalculation,’’ August 13, 1996, and ‘‘Modeling

15% VOC Reduction(s) from I/M in 1999—

Supplemental Guidance,’’ December 23, 1996. EPA

policy provides that credit in 15% plans can be

claimed from the I/M start date to November 1999.

complete. The 15% ROP plan

anticipated that the program would start

up in January 1995, but the program

actually started in January 1996. The

emissions reduction benefits of E-Check

have been delayed beyond November

15, 1996.

Ohio implemented E-Check in the

Cincinnati area in January 1996. In

August 1996 vehicle testing was

suspended due to technical and

operational problems. On January 5,

1998, OEPA resumed the E-Check

program in the Cincinnati area. EPA

performed a modeling analysis to

determine if the emission reduction

credits claimed in the 15% plan from

enhanced I/M would be achieved by

November 1999.1 EPA modeled the

emission reductions from the program,

with an enhanced I/M start date of

January 1996, out to November 1999, as

provided for in EPA policy. EPA

subtracted emissions for the period of

time the testing program was suspended

(from August 1996 to December 1997).

Other program characteristics modeled

included actual I/M emission cutpoints

in place at the time of evaluation, and

projected 1996 vehicle miles traveled

information for the Cincinnati area.

EPA’s analysis showed that the E-Check

program would provide the necessary

VOC emissions reductions for the 15%

plan by November 1999.

To determine whether there are other

available potential control measures

which can meaningfully accelerate the

date by which 15% emission reduction

in the Cincinnati-Hamilton area can be

achieved, EPA compared the area’s 15%

Rate of Progress (ROP) and contingency

plans with control measures included in

15% ROP plans nation-wide, which are

listed in EPA’s report, ‘‘Sample City

Analysis: Comparison of Enhanced I/M

Reductions Versus Other 15 Percent

ROP Plan Measures,’’ December 12,

1996, referenced in EPA’s policy

document ‘‘15% VOC SIP Approvals

and the ‘As Soon As Practicable’ Test,’’

February 12, 1997. The report listed

several possible control measures which

were not included in the CincinnatiHamilton 15% plan. Some of these

control measures have the potential to

achieve significant emission reductions.

These control measures include the

federal reformulated gasoline program,

federal Transfer, Storage, and Disposal

Facility (TSDF) regulations, and federal

consumer/commercial products

regulations.

The federal reformulated gasoline

program (RFG) (40 CFR part 80, subpart

D) requires that gasoline providers in

certain areas sell only gasoline which

meets certain blending requirements to

reduce pollution. Areas not already

subject to these requirements, such as

the Cincinnati-Hamilton area, can,

under section 211(k)(6) of the Act, ‘‘optin’’ to the program, upon request to EPA

by the Governor.

In the Cincinnati area there is not

enough lead time to get a fuels program

selected, approved, and in place for this

summer’s ozone season and by the next

ozone season (the summer of 1999) the

E-Check program will be about three

quarters of the way through testing. In

Phoenix, Arizona, for example, the

Governor established an Air Quality

Strategies Task Force in May 1996 to

develop a report describing ozone

reduction measures. In January 1997 the

Governor requested to opt into the

Reformulated Gasoline program. USEPA

approved the program on June 3, 1997,

with an effective date of August 4, 1997

for retailers and wholesale purchaseconsumers. It took about 15 months, on

an extremely expedited schedule from

the time the task force was formed, for

the program to become effective in the

Phoenix area.

In addition, phase II RFG will be

required in nonattainment areas using

RFG in the year 2000, instead of the

current phase I RFG used in certain

nonattainment areas across the country.

Given the short lead time, the start up

of the E-Check program, and the

national change over to phase II of RFG

in areas using RFG, it is not practical to

implement phase I RFG in place of ECheck in an effort to achieve the 15%

ROP reduction requirement as soon as

practicable. The Greater Cincinnati area

will experience immediate benefits from

the E-Check program, and these benefits

will increase as more cars are tested and

repaired. A significant portion of the

automobiles will be tested and repaired

by this summer in time for this year’s

ozone season. These benefits will help

the area to make progress toward

attaining the ozone standard as soon as

practicable. Therefore, for all of these

reasons, USEPA believes the

reformulated gasoline program could

not be implemented in the Ohio portion

of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area

significantly faster than E-check.

The federal TSDF regulations,

promulgated pursuant to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

as amended, require air pollution

controls on certain facilities which

manage hazardous wastes containing

VOC and hazardous air pollutants.

These regulations were promulgated in

two phases, one on June 21, 1990 (55 FR

25454), and the other on December 6,

1994 (59 FR 62896). The final

compliance date for the second phase of

control was December 8, 1997. These

Federal regulations are expected to

provide significant emissions reduction

in the Cincinnati area and will assist the

area in making progress towards

attainment of the ozone standard.

The February 12 EPA memorandum

from Seitz and Ossias provides a report

listing a cutback asphalt ban and open

burning ban as measures the State could

potentially adopt to achieve emission

reductions. However, the report

overestimates the emission reduction

potential of a cutback asphalt ban

because the use of cutback asphalt is

prohibited in Ohio by OAC 3745–21–

09(N). The State of Ohio also has an

open burning ban that has been in place

for a number of years. As for other

control measures, such as regulating

industrial adhesives reformulation and/

or solvent cleaning substitution/

equipment, these measures are not

expected to achieve reductions

significantly faster than E-check,

because it would take Ohio one to two

years to develop, adopt, and implement

these measures. It is not reasonable to

implement other controls to make up for

the delay in implementing the E-check

program and the emissions reduction is

expected to be met by 1999 with the

help of Federal emissions control

programs.

Federal Architectural Coatings Rule

The State estimated that the

anticipated Federal rule for architectural

coatings would provide for a 25 percent

emission reduction in that category. An

EPA policy memorandum issued after

the State had submitted its plan to EPA

stated that only 20 percent is allowed.

In addition there have been delays in

proposing the rule, and the compliance

date is not expected to occur until 1998.

This change in policy would revise the

emission reduction estimated

downward by 0.8 TPD.

The State did not take credit in its

plan for the Federal Nonroad engine

emissions standards rule. This rule sets

standards for new engines and will

reduce emissions in the future. In

addition, the State did not take credit

for the automobile refinishing rule

which is estimated to provide a 1.6 TPD

emissions reduction. This assumes a 30

percent reduction in VOC emissions

from the national automobile refinishing

rule EPA is developing. These factors

will help to offset the change in
4194 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

emissions reduction credit for

architectural coatings.

The State’s plan provides a table of

cost effectiveness estimates for the

various control measures considered by

the State for its plan.

TABLE 2.—STATUS OF EMISSIONS CONTROL MEASURES IN THE CINCINNATI-HAMILTON AREA 15 PERCENT ROP PLAN

Control measure Status of rules

Stage II Vapor Recovery .................................... Approved on October 20, 1994, at 59 FR 52911.

Enhanced Automobile Inspection and Maintenance.Approved on April 4, 1995, at 60 FR 16989.

NESHAP for reducing coke by product Benzene

emissions.

Federal Regulation (see 40 CFR part 61).

Enforcement Cases ............................................ Sources brought in to compliance since 1990 with preexisting rule.

Architectural Coatings ......................................... Federal Regulation for which Ohio may take credit (see memorandum dated March 7, 1996

from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Regional Division

Directors).

CONTINGENCY EMISSIONS REDUCTION ...... Lower RVP rule to be addressed in subsequent rulemaking action.

G. Rate-of-Progress and Contingency

Plan Demonstrations

Overall, Ohio’s ROP plan provides for

a 48.0 TPD emissions reduction, which

meets the ROP requirements. The

contingency plan provides for the

necessary 3 percent emission reduction

and both the contingency measure and

the contingency plan will be addressed

in a subsequent rulemaking action. EPA

can address the contingency plan in a

subsequent rulemaking action because it

is not a prerequisite to approving the

15% ROP plan.

H. Enforceability

Each rule developed by the State for

the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area 15% ROP plan has been

independently reviewed and approved

by EPA as part of the State’s SIP. Part

of this review process includes a review

of the enforceability of the rule. The

remaining rules that the State is taking

credit for are Federal rules or are

expected to soon be issued as Federal

rules.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA is approving the 15% rate of

progress plan for the Ohio portion of the

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone

nonattainment area. The plan will

provide for a 15% emissions reduction

by 1999, which is as soon as practicable.

For the purposes of transportation

conformity determinations, final

approval of this ROP plan revision also

approves the 1996 mobile source

emission budget of 57.23 TPD of VOC

for the Ohio portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area. This budget is the

projected 1996 emissions including

growth and the reductions expected

from E-Check and stage II gasoline vapor

recovery. For years later than 1996,

conformity determinations addressing

VOCs must demonstrate consistency

with this plan revision’s motor vehicle

emissions budget. Final approval of this

ROP plan revision does not eliminate

the need for a build/no-build test for

oxides of nitrogen.

Because EPA considers this action

noncontroversial and routine, we are

approving it without prior proposal.

This action will become effective on

March 30, 1998. However, if EPA

receives significant adverse comments

on the approval of the rate-of-progress

plan in writing by February 27, 1998,

which have not already been addressed

by the State or EPA, EPA will withdraw

the direct final approval of the plan and

address the comments received in a new

final rule.

V. Miscellaneous

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Ohio Audit Privilege and Immunity

Law

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

Ohio’s audit privilege and immunity

law (sections 3745.70–3745.73 of the

Ohio Revised Code). EPA will be

reviewing the effect of the Ohio audit

privilege and immunity law on various

Ohio environmental programs,

including those under the Clean Air

Act, and taking appropriate action(s), if

any, after thorough analysis and

opportunity for Ohio to state and

explain its views and positions on the

issues raised by the law. The action

taken herein does not express or imply

any viewpoint on the question of

whether there are legal deficiencies in

this or any Ohio CAA program resulting

from the effect of the audit privilege and

immunity law. As a consequence of the

review process, the regulations subject

to the action taken herein may be

disapproved, federal approval for the

Clean Air Act program under which

they are implemented may be

withdrawn, or other appropriate action

may be taken, as necessary.

C. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

D. Regulatory Flexibility

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 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, the

Administrator certifies that this action

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 the regulatory flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of the

State action. The Act 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 (1976).

E. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 4195

undertake various actions in association

with 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. 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 the private sector,

result from this action.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended 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 section

804(2) of the APA as amended.

G. 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 Appeal for the appropriate

circuit by March 30, 1998. 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)).

VII. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: January 9, 1998.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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.

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (z) to read as follows:

§ 52.1885 Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(z) The 15 percent rate-of-progress

requirement of section 182(b) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, is

satisfied for the Ohio portion of the

Cincinnati-Hamilton ozone

nonattainment area.

[FR Doc. 98–2081 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–27; RM–8901]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Salome,

Arizona

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

241A to Salome, Arizona, as that

community’s first local aural

transmission service in response to a

petition filed on behalf of Browns Well

Broadcasting. See 62 FR 4226, January

29, 1997. Coordinates used for Channel

241A at Salome, Arizona, are 33–46–54

and 113–36–42. As Salome is located

within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the

U.S.-Mexico border, concurrence of the

Mexican government to this allotment

was requested but has not been

received. Therefore, Channel 241A has

been alloted to Salome with the

following interim condition: ‘‘Operation

with the facilities specified herein is

subject to modification, suspension, or

termination without right to a hearing if

found by the Commission to be

necessary in order to conform to the

1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast

Agreement’’ (‘‘Agreement’’). The

condition is a temporary measure as we

have determined that Channel 241A at

Salome complies with the Agreement.

Once an official response from the

Mexican government has been obtained,

the interim condition may be removed.

With this action, the proceeding is

terminated.

DATES: Effective March 9, 1998. A filing

window for Channel 241A at Salome,

Arizona, will not be opened at this time.

Instead, the issue of opening a filing

window for this channel will be

addressed by the Commission in a

separate Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180. Questions related to the

window application filing process

should be addressed to the Audio

Services Division, (202) 418–2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–27,

adopted January 14, 1998, and released

January 23, 1998. 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 contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

reads as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Arizona, is amended

by adding Salome, Channel 241A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 98–2034 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. OST–96–1472]

RIN: 2105–AC68

Privacy Act; Implementation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: DOT amends its rules

implementing the Privacy Act of 1974 to

exempt from certain provisions of the

Act the Coast Guard’s Marine Safety

Information System.

DATES: This amendment is effective

February 27, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert I. Ross, Office of the General

Counsel, C–10, Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,

telephone (202) 366–9156, FAX (202)

366–9170.