2718 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

requirements of section 110 of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 51. In

the Final Rules Section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If the EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by February

10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Montel Livingston,

Environmental Protection Specialist

(AT–082), Air Programs Section, at the

EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

proposed rule are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, Air Programs Section, 1200

6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, 811 SW. Sixth Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rindy Ramos, Air & Radiation Branch

(AT–082), EPA, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Dated: November 16, 1994.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–611 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IN 45–1–6618; FRL–5138–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: An important component of

the Indiana State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) consists of a two-part VOC

definition. For purposes of remaining

consistent with Federal regulations, the

State of Indiana submitted a revision to

the SIP which incorporates the current

Federal VOC definition requirements

contained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 51 except that,

unlike the Federal definition, the

Indiana rule contains the exclusion of

‘‘vegetable oils.’’ Because the State has

committed to correcting this deficiency

by January 31, 1996, USEPA is

proposing conditional approval of this

SIP revision request. If the State fails to

correct the deficiency, the conditional

approval will convert to a disapproval.

DATES: Comments on this revision

request and on the proposed USEPA

action must be received by February 10,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision

request and USEPA’s analysis are

available for inspection at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division (AR–18J), 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

The VOC definition, adopted by the

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on

June 2, 1993, is in two parts, located

under Title 326 Indiana Administrative

Code (IAC) 1–2–48 (for

nonphotochemically reactive

hydrocarbon) and 326 IAC 1–2–90 (for

VOC). The definition, at 326 IAC 1–2–

48.1, is amended to add five halocarbon

compounds and four classes of

perfluorocarbons to the list of organic

compounds considered to be ‘‘negligibly

reactive’’ in the formation of Ozone. In

326 IAC 1–2–90.1, Indiana amends the

definition by excluding five carbon

compounds that have negligible

photochemical reactivity. These

amendments, as described, comport

with the Federal requirements.

Indiana has also added an exclusion

of vegetable oils to the VOC definition,

which makes it inconsistent with the

revised Federal definition of VOC

promulgated as part of the February 3,

1992 (57 FR 3945) final rule. 40 CFR

51.100(s). The exclusion of vegetable

oils is based on comments and material

presented at a State hearing on March

22, 1993. During the hearing,

representatives from Frito-Lay, National

Food Processors Association, Corn

Refiners Association, and Institute of

Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc.,

provided a 1991 USEPA report entitled,

‘‘The Impact of Declaring Soybean Oil

Exempt from VOC Regulations on the

Coatings Program.’’ Also included, in

support of the exclusion, was an August

21, 1990, Memorandum from the

Director of USEPA’s Air Quality

Management Division, to the Director of

the Air, Pesticides, and Toxics

Management Divisions, Region IV.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

USEPA does not recognize the

exclusion of vegetable oils from the

definition of VOC, because this

exclusion was not contained in the

February 3, 1992 final rule (57 FR 3945).

To the extent that the August 21, 1990

Memorandum and the 1991 USEPA

report, cited above, are inconsistent

with the February 3, 1992 rule, they are

superseded by the February 3, 1992

final rule.

Vegetable processing sources cannot

be exempted from the VOC definition

rule, as proposed by the State of

Indiana. Subject sources, however, may

be able to seek source category

exemptions under the generic nonControl Technology Guideline (nonCTG sources) RACT rule, if supported

by documentation acceptable to the

USEPA.

Based on EPA’s preliminary analysis

that the State’s submittal was

unapprovable, Indiana submitted to

USEPA, a letter dated December 14,

1994, committing to the necessary rule

revision. In accordance with an attached

schedule, Indiana expects a final rule to

be adopted and submitted to USEPA by

January 1996.

III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and

Solicitation of Public Comment

USEPA is proposing a conditional

approval of the Indiana VOC definition

rule because the State has committed to

correct the rule so that it fully comports

with USEPA requirements as

established in the February 3, 1992,

final rule. Upon a final conditional

approval by EPA, if the State ultimately

fails to meet its commitment to correct

the deficiency, noted herein, by January

31, 1996, the date the State committed

to in its commitment letter, then

USEPA’s action for the State’s requested
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2719

1References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as

amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399 (‘‘the Act’’).

The Act is codified, as amended, at the U.S. Code

in 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2EPA has construed the definition of

nonattainment area to require some material or

significant contribution in a nearby area. The

Agency believes it is reasonable to conclude that

something greater than a molecular impact is

required.

SIP revision will automatically convert

to a final disapproval.

Public comments are solicited on the

requested SIP revision and on USEPA’s

proposed conditional approval. Public

comments received by February 10,

1995 will be considered in the

development of USEPA’s final

rulemaking action.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit 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 Act 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

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–690 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[ID–A–94–64; FRL–5137–6]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; State of Idaho

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

as amended in 1990, EPA is authorized

to promulgate redesignation of areas as

nonattainment for the PM–10

(particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than or equal to a

nominal ten micrometers) National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). In a prior action, EPA

proposed to redesignate as

nonattainment for PM–10 a portion of

Kootenai County consisting of the City

of Coeur d’Alene. In today’s action, EPA

is requesting public comment on a

proposal to expand the proposed

nonattainment boundary and

redesignate a larger portion of Kootenai

County, Idaho, from unclassifiable to

nonattainment for PM–10. EPA is

proposing that the portion of Kootenai

County outside the exterior boundary of

the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation be

designated nonattainment and classified

moderate for PM–10. Monitored

violations of the PM–10 NAAQS have

been recorded at monitoring sites in

Coeur d’Alene and Post Falls, Idaho.

DATES: All written comments on this

proposal should be submitted by March

13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, U.S. EPA, Air Programs

Development Section (AT–082), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

Information supporting this

rulemaking action can be found in

Public Docket ID–A–94–64 at U.S. EPA,

Air Programs Development Section,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101. The docket may be inspected

from 8 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on weekdays,

except for legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Body, Environmental Protection

Agency (ATD–082), Air and Radiation

Branch, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, 206/553–0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General

EPA is authorized to initiate

redesignation of areas as nonattainment

for PM–10 pursuant to section 107(d)(3)

of the Act 1 on the basis of air quality

data, planning and control

considerations or any other air quality

related considerations the Administrator

deems appropriate. A nonattainment

area is defined as any area that does not

meet, or any area with sources that

significantly contribute to ambient air

quality in a nearby area that does not

meet, the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) (see section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act).2 Thus, in

determining the appropriate boundary

for a nonattainment area, EPA considers

not only the areas where the violations

occurred but also nearby areas which

contain sources that could significantly

contribute to such violations.

In the absence of technical

information identifying particular

sources contributing to violations of the

NAAQS, EPA policy for PM–10 is to use

political boundaries associated with the

area where the monitored violations

occurred and in which it is reasonably

expected that sources contributing to

the violations are located (see, for

example, 57 FR 43846 at 43848 (Sept.

22, 1992)). PM–10 nonattainment

boundaries are generally presumed to

be, as appropriate, the county, township

or other municipal subdivision in which

the ambient particulate matter monitors

recording the PM–10 violations are

located. EPA has presumed that this

would include both the areas in

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS and

areas containing sources that

significantly contribute to the

violations. Moreover, EPA tends to

consider and propose more expansive

nonattainment area political boundaries

to ensure that sources contributing to

the nonattainment problem are

considered in the State’s technical

evaluation and analysis of the area’s air

quality problem. However, a boundary

other than a county perimeter or other

municipal boundary may be more

appropriate. Affected States and Tribes

may submit information demonstrating

that, consistent with section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, a boundary