Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules 41221

general SIP requirements regarding

enforceability, for example, are still

appropriate for the rule. In determining

the approvability of this rule, EPA

evaluated it in light of the ‘‘SO2

Guideline Document’’, EPA–452/R–94–

008.

On April 17, 1987, EPA approved into

the SIP a version of Rule 64, Sulfur

Content of Fuels, that had been adopted

by the VCAPCD on July 5, 1983.

VCAPCD submitted an amendment to

Rule 64 on July 13, 1994 which includes

the following significant changes from

the current SIP:

• Adds a section on applicability of

the rule.

• Adds a section on test methods for

determining the sulfur content of fuels.

• Removes incineration of waste

gases whose gross heating value is less

than 300 BTUs per cubic foot from the

list of exemptions to Rule 64.

• Exempts flare gas combustion and

places it under the requirements of Rule

54: Sulfur Compounds.

EPA has evaluated VCAPCD’s

submitted Rule 64 for consistency with

the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA

policy and has found that the revisions

result in a clearer, more enforceable

rule. Although VCAPCD’s Rule 64 will

strengthen the SIP, this rule contains the

following deficiency which should be

corrected.

• The rule does not explicitly state

those records which sources are

required to keep on site and made

available to inspectors to assess

compliance. The rule also does not state

the minimum length of time for

retaining data on site.

A detailed discussion of the rule

deficiency can be found in the

Technical Support Document for Rule

64 (7/1/98), which is available from the

U.S. EPA, Region IX office. Because of

this deficiency, the rule is not

approvable and may lead to rule

enforceability problems.

Because of the above deficiency, EPA

cannot grant full approval of this rule

under section 110(k)(3). Also, because

the submitted rule is not composed of

separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA,

EPA cannot grant partial approval of the

rule under section 110(k)(3). However,

EPA may grant a limited approval of the

submitted rule under section 110(k)(3)

in light of EPA’s authority pursuant to

section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by

strengthening the SIP. The approval is

limited because EPA’s action also

contains a simultaneous limited

disapproval. In order to strengthen the

SIP, EPA is proposing a limited

approval of VCAPCD Rule 64 under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. At the same time, EPA is also

proposing a limited disapproval of this

rule because it contains a deficiency.

There will be no sanctions clock as

VCAPCD is in attainment for SO2.

It should be noted that the rule

covered by this proposed rulemaking

has been adopted by the VCAPCD and

is currently in effect in the VCAPCD.

EPA’s final limited disapproval action

will not prevent the VCAPCD or EPA

from enforcing this rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

The proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ because it is

not an ‘‘economically significant’’ action

under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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, 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 flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

action concerning SIPS on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 22, 1998.

Sally Seymour,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–20609 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–6133–8]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes: State of Idaho and

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Fort

Hall Indian Reservation Particulate

Matter Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).
41222 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 148 / Monday, August 3, 1998 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule; re-opening of

public comment deadline.

SUMMARY: By this action, EPA is reopening the public comment period

from July 20, 1998, to August 19, 1998,

the deadline for receiving written

comments on two Agency proposed

actions: the redesignation of the PowerBannock Counties PM–10

nonattainment area, and a finding that

the proposed Fort Hall nonattainment

area failed to attain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for particulate matter of less than ten

micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

(PM–10).

DATES: Comments must be received or

postmarked on or before August 19,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the request and

other information supporting this

proposed action are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air Quality, 1200

Sixth Avenue, (OAQ–107), Seattle,

Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), US Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,

Washington 98101, (206) 553–0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

19, 1998 (63 FR 33597), EPA solicited

public comment on its proposal to

redesignate the Power-Bannock

Counties PM–10 nonattainment area by

creating two distinct nonattainment

areas that together cover the identical

geographic area as the original

nonattainment area. Likewise, on June

19, 1998 (63 FR 33605), EPA solicited

public comment on a concurrent

proposal to find that a portion of the

Fort Hall Indian Reservation had failed

to attain the PM–10 NAAQS by the

applicable attainment date of December

31, 1996. EPA received a request to

extend the public comment period to

allow more time to prepare a

comprehensive comment document.

As a result of a request to extend the

public comment period, EPA is granting

a 30-day extension. A copy of this

request has been placed into the docket

and may be reviewed during normal

business hours at the following location:

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington

98101. Interested parties are invited to

comment on all aspects of EPA’s two

proposals of June 19, 1998. Comments

should be submitted, preferably in

triplicate, to the address listed in the

front of this document.

Dated: July 24, 1998.

Phil Millam,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 98–20608 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA 98–3967; Notice 2]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices,

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document extends the

comment period on an NPRM

concerning a petition from Reitter &

Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG. to amend

the agency’s lighting standard. The

petition asks that the standard be

amended to relieve design restrictions

that may inadvertently prevent the

implementation of certain newtechnology light sources in motor

vehicle signal lamps. In the NPRM, the

agency sought comments on adding

requirements reflecting Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE)

specifications for measurement of

photometrics in taillamps and in certain

stop and turn signal lamps with more

than one lighted section. In response to

a petition from the American

Automobile Manufacturers Association

(AAMA), the agency is extending the

comment period from August 10, 1998

to October 9, 1998. The reason for the

extension is to give commenters

sufficient time to review new

information that has come to light since

the NPRM was published.

DATES: Comments on Docket No.

NHTSA 98–3967; Notice 1 must be

received by October 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket

Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590 (Docket hours are from 10:00 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety

Performance Standards (202–366–4918).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

24, 1998, NHTSA published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 34350) an

NPRM concerning a petition from

Reitter & Schefenacker GmbH & Co. KG.

The petitioner requested the agency

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, ‘‘Lamps,

Reflective Devices, and Associated

Equipment,’’ to relieve design

restrictions that may inadvertently

prevent the implementation of certain

new-technology light sources in motor

vehicle lamps. The petition was

submitted to relieve design restrictions

that may inadvertently prevent the

implementation of certain newtechnology light sources. These new

lamp technologies include lightemitting diodes (LEDs), miniature

halogen bulbs, and other light sources

with a limited luminous flux. Because

the requirements contained in FMVSS

No. 108 for signal lamps are based on

SAE Standards and Recommended

Practices that were developed many

years before LEDs, when incandescent

bulbs were the only light sources in use

at that time, the standard does not take

into account the characteristics of these

new-technology light sources.

On July 23, 1998, AAMA petitioned

for an extension of the comment period.

AAMA noted that new information has

recently been published which should

be thoroughly considered before offering

comment on the NPRM. Namely, the

University of Michigan Transportation

Research Institute published a report in

June 1998 entitled ‘‘Photometric

Requirements for Signal Lamps Using

Innovative Light Sources: Updating

Requirements Based on Lighted

Sections’’ (UMTRI–98–19). The

opportunity to examine the views

expressed in this report should be given

to those who will comment on the

NPRM.

After considering the arguments

raised by AAMA, NHTSA has decided

that it is in the public interest to grant

the petitioner’s request.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50)

Issued on: July 29, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–20630 Filed 7–31–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P