Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 20775

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: April 25, 1996.

Russell F. Price,

Acting Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 96–11292 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024–AC23

Voyageurs National Park, Aircraft

Operations—Designation of Areas

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: The proposed rule would

amend the special regulations for

Voyageurs National Park by replacing

the interim rule (60 FR 39257) that was

published on August 2, 1995,

designating certain areas open to aircraft

use within the park. This rulemaking is

necessary to comply with NPS general

regulations that require special

regulatory designation for areas in parks

open to the operation or use by aircraft.

The intended effect of this rule is to

increase safety, protect resources and

provide appropriate enjoyment to all

park users.

The 1980 Master Plan for the park

states that float planes and ski planes

will be allowed upon all lakes deemed

safe by the Minnesota Department of

Transportation. It also stated this

allowance would be subject to the

findings of a wilderness study. The 1992

wilderness study. The 1992 wilderness

study recommended that planes be

allowed on the four major lakes (Rainy,

Kabetogama, Namakan and Sand Point),

as well as the following interior lakes:

Locator, War Club, Quill, Loiten,

Shoepack, Little Trout and Mukooda.

Each year the park receives an

increasing number of inquiries for

permission to land float planes in the

park.

Public aircraft use on park waters

occurred prior to the designation of the

park in 1971. This use is primarily

related to fishing, camping,

transportation to resorts and summer

dwellings and is typical for the area.

Float plane use is mainly associated

with the four major lakes with use of the

interior lakes constituting less than one

percent of the park’s use. Aircraft are

currently prohibited from using about

22 small interior lakes that have been

determined to be too small to use safely

by the Minnesota Department of

Transportation. Three other lakes that

have been used periodically and are

accessible by hiking trails will not be

opened to float plane use by this

regulation. The closing of these three

interior lakes will allow the park to

manage the interior lakes on an

equitable basis since other motorized

uses are prohibited.

DATES: Written Comments will be

accepted through September 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Superintendent, Proposed

Regulation Comment, Voyageurs

National Park, 3131 Highway 53,

International Falls, MN 56649–8904.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chief Ranger, Voyageurs National Park,

3131 Highway 53, International Falls,

MN 56649–8904. Telephone (218) 283–

9821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Extended Comment Period: Voyageurs

National Park—Aircraft Operations,

Designation of Areas

This document announces a 120-day

reopening of the comment period for the

proposed rule—Voyageurs National

Park—Aircraft Operations, Designation

of Areas—that was published in the

Federal Register on January 31, 1996

(61 FR 3360). The initial comment

period expired on April 1, 1996.

Comments received during the initial

comment period requested additional

time to review the proposed regulation.

Accordingly, the comment period for

the proposed rule is hereby extended an

additional 120 days.

Dated: April 25, 1996.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 96–11397 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[FRL–5468–4]

RIN 2060–AF04

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; National

Emission Standard for Radon

Emissions From Phosphogypsum

Stacks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of

Reconsideration.

SUMMARY: On March 24, 1994, EPA

announced its decision concerning a

petition by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)

seeking reconsideration of a June 3,

1992 final rule revising the National

Emission Standard for Radon Emissions

from Phosphogypsum Stacks, 40 CFR

Part 61, Subpart R. EPA partially

granted and partially denied the TFI

petition for reconsideration. Pursuant to

that decision, EPA is convening a

rulemaking to reconsider 40 CFR

61.205, the provision of the final rule

which governs distribution and use of

phosphogypsum for research and

development, and the methodology

utilized under 40 CFR 61.207 to

establish the average radium-226

concentration for phosphogypsum

removed from a phosphogypsum stack.

This document identifies proposed

changes to be considered as part of this

reconsideration and specific underlying

issues on which EPA seeks further

comment.

DATES: Comments concerning this

proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before July 8, 1996. EPA will hold

a public hearing concerning this

proposed rule in Washington, D.C. if a

request for a hearing is received by EPA

by June 7, 1996. In the event a hearing

is requested, EPA will publish a

separate notice specifying the date and

location of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and
20776 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Information Center, 6102, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,

Attn: Air Docket No. A–94–57. Requests

for a public hearing should be made in

writing to the Director, Radiation

Protection Division, 6602J, Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Requests may also be faxed to EPA at

(202) 233–9629.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacolyn Dziuban, Center for Federal

Guidance and Air Standards (6602J),

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC 20460 (202) 233–9474.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket

Docket No. A–79–11 contains the

public record supporting the final rule

revising 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R,

which EPA issued in 1992 (57 FR

23305, June 3, 1992). It also contains the

August 3, 1992 TFI petition which led

to the initiation of this rulemaking, and

the EPA response partially granting and

partially denying the TFI petition (59 FR

14040, March 24, 1994). Docket No. A–

94–57 contains certain documents upon

which this proposal is based. These

dockets are available for public

inspection between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, in

room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

I. Background

A. Description of Phosphogypsum

Phosphogypsum is a waste byproduct

which results from the wet process of

producing phosphoric acid from

phosphate rock. Phosphogypsum stacks

are piles of waste or mines utilized to

store and dispose of phosphogypsum.

Because phosphate ore contains a

relatively high concentration of uranium

and radium, phosphogypsum piles also

contain high levels of these elements.

The vast majority of piles are located in

Florida, although other states also

involved in phosphate rock production

include Idaho, North Carolina,

Tennessee, Utah, Alabama and

Wyoming.

B. Regulatory History

1. The December 15, 1989 Standard

On December 15, 1989, EPA

published a National Emission Standard

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

applicable to radon emissions from

phosphogypsum stacks, 40 CFR Part 61,

Subpart R (54 FR 51654, December 15,

1989) (Subpart R). As part of that

standard, EPA adopted a work practice

requirement that all phosphogypsum be

disposed of in stacks, thereby permitting

control and measurement of gaseous

radon-222 which is emitted when the

radium present in the phosphogypsum

decays.

Subsequent to the issuance of Subpart

R, EPA received petitions for

reconsideration from The Fertilizer

Institute (TFI), Consolidated Minerals,

Inc., and U.S. Gypsum Company. These

petitioners objected to the requirement

that all phosphogypsum be disposed

and managed in stacks, because it

precluded various alternative uses of

phosphogypsum, including use of

phosphogypsum in agriculture,

construction, and research and

development. Because EPA had not

fully considered the implications of its

work practice standard for alternative

uses, EPA agreed to convene a

reconsideration proceeding in which the

risks associated with alternative uses

and the procedures under which

alternative uses might be permitted

could be evaluated (54 FR 9612, March

7, 1989).

Rather than setting forth one specific

proposal for revision of Subpart R, EPA

requested comment on a variety of

substantive issues, including specific

types of proposed alternative uses of

phosphogypsum and the health risks

associated with these alternative uses.

EPA also requested comment on four

general options for regulation of

alternative uses: (1) no change in the

work practice requirement, (2) changing

the definition of phosphogypsum to

exclude from the work practice

requirement material with radium-226

concentrations up to 10 picocuries/gram

(pCi/g), (3) permitting use of

phosphogypsum in research and

development on processes to remove

radium from the phosphogypsum, and

(4) permitting alternative use of

phosphogypsum only after specific

permission from EPA.

2. The June 3, 1992 Revision of Subpart

R

After analyzing the risks associated

with the various alternative uses of

phosphogypsum which were proposed

and evaluating the comments which

were received, EPA issued a final rule

revising Subpart R (57 FR 23305, June

3, 1992). The approach which EPA

ultimately adopted was a hybrid of the

options it had previously identified. For

phosphogypsum use in agriculture, EPA

decided that it would be impractical to

require case-by-case approval. Based on

its analysis of potential risks associated

with long-term use of phosphogypsum

in agriculture, EPA set a maximum

upper limit of 10 pCi/g for radium-226

in phosphogypsum distributed for use

in agriculture. Rather than excluding

material at or below 10 pCi/g from the

standard, EPA established sampling,

measurement, and certification

procedures permitting such material to

be removed from stacks and sold for

agricultural use. Based on an analysis of

potential risks associated with the

research and development use, EPA

decided to permit the use of up to 700

pounds of phosphogypsum for a

particular research and development

activity. EPA also decided to adopt

procedures permitting approval of other

uses of phosphogypsum on a case-bycase basis.

After EPA issued its final rule

concluding the reconsideration

proceeding and revising Subpart R, The

Fertilizer Institute (TFI) sought judicial

review of the 1992 revisions of Subpart

R in The Fertilizer Institute v.

Environmental Protection Agency, No.

92–1320 (D.C. Cir.). TFI also filed a

petition dated August 3, 1992 seeking

further reconsideration of the revisions

of the rule pursuant to Clean Air Act

Section 307(d)(7)(B). TFI, EPA, and

ManaSota-88, another petitioner who

sought review of the 1992 rule in

ManaSota-88 v. Browner, No. 92–1330

(D.C. Cir.), later reached an agreement to

jointly move the D.C. Circuit Court of

Appeals to stay judicial review of the

1992 rule, and the Court granted the

motion. As part of that agreement, EPA

agreed to make a final decision whether

to grant or to deny the TFI petition for

reconsideration. After a careful review

of all of the objections set forth in the

petition for reconsideration, EPA

decided to partially deny and to

partially grant the petition (59 FR

14040, March 24, 1994).

II. Standard for Reconsideration

Under Clean Air Act Section

307(d)(7)(B), the EPA Administrator is

required to convene a reconsideration

proceeding if: (1) the person raising an

objection to a rule can demonstrate to

the Administrator that it was

impracticable to raise such objection

within the time permitted for public

comment or the grounds for the

objection arose after the period for

public comment, and (2) if the

Administrator determines that the

objection is of central relevance to the

outcome of the rule. Therefore,

reconsideration is not required if the

objections by a petitioner were raised or

could reasonably have been raised

during the pendency of the rulemaking.

Moreover, even in the circumstance
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 20777

where a particular objection could not

have been raised earlier, reconsideration

is not required if EPA determines that

such objections would not have altered

the outcome of the rule had they been

raised earlier.

In the notice announcing the Agency’s

decision to partially deny and partially

grant TFI’s Petition for Reconsideration

(59 FR 14040, March 24, 1994), EPA

concluded that most of the objections

raised by TFI did not warrant convening

a reconsideration proceeding, but that

some of the objections by TFI did

warrant reconsideration of certain

provisions of the 1992 rule. EPA found

that many of the technical and policy

objections by TFI to the EPA analysis of

the potential risks of phosphogypsum

use were not of central relevance to the

outcome of the 1992 rule, and that some

of the other policy objections could

have been raised during the public

comment period. Therefore, EPA denied

the petition for those objections.

EPA also determined, as explained in

the March 24, 1994 notice, that it was

not practicable for TFI to raise some of

its objections during the previous

reconsideration proceeding, and that

these objections might have affected the

content of the 1992 rule had they been

raised during the comment period. EPA

therefore concluded that these specific

objections were of central relevance to

the outcome of the 1992 rule for the

specific provisions of the rule which

they concern, and stated that the

Agency would convene a rulemaking to

reconsider these provisions of the rule.

III. Issues To Be Reconsidered

A. The 700 Pound Limitation

In the EPA analysis of potential risks

associated with the research and

development use of phosphogypsum

upon which the 1992 revisions of

Subpart R were based, EPA assumed

that all of the free radon generated by

phosphogypsum containing 26 pCi/g

radium-226 would be released to one

small laboratory room. As part of its

analysis of the TFI petition, EPA

concluded that most laboratory

experiments using phosphogypsum

would not result in such a high

emanation rate. In addition, EPA

discovered during its review of the TFI

petition that the EPA analysis upon

which the 1992 rule was based

erroneously assumed that five 700

pound drums would be stored or

utilized in the same area of the

laboratory, even though only a single

700 pound drum limit was permitted by

the 1992 rule. Based on these two

factors, EPA decided that it would be

appropriate to reassess the risks

associated with the use of

phosphogypsum in laboratory research

and development activities and to

reconsider the 700 pound limitation in

light of that reassessment. The Agency’s

new risk assessment for laboratory use

of phosphogypsum entitled

‘‘Addendum—Risk Assessment for

Research and Development Uses’’ of

Phosphogypsum has been included in

the docket for this proposed rule and

may also be obtained from the EPA

contact person listed at the beginning of

this notice.

The new EPA risk assessment for

laboratory use of phosphogypsum

concludes that use of 700 pounds of

phosphogypsum is expected to cause an

increase in lifetime cancer risk for the

researchers working with this material

of approximately 1.2×10¥6 for each year

of exposure. If it is assumed that a

researcher might work with this

phosphogypsum in a laboratory for 10

years, this would result in a total

increase in lifetime cancer risk for that

researcher of approximately 1×10¥5.

Utilizing the two-step process for

determining the emission level which

would provide an ‘‘ample margin of

safety’’ which was established by the

Court in the vinyl chloride decision,

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1987),

EPA has determined in some prior

instances that increases in lifetime

cancer risk of approximately 1×10¥4 are

acceptable. However, the second step of

the methodology required by the vinyl

chloride decision involves considering

the economic feasibility of further

reductions in exposure and the

associated risks. Therefore, to properly

apply this methodology in selecting an

appropriate limit, EPA must determine

whether there are circumstances where

it would be helpful to researchers to

utilize quantities of phosphogypsum

greater than 700 pounds in a laboratory

setting. EPA is specifically requesting

comments on whether any individual

believes it would be useful to use more

than the current limit of 700 pounds of

phosphogypsum in any single

laboratory research and development

project and if so, what practical

advantages a higher limit would

provide.

In its petition, TFI also argued that it

was not clear from the text of the 1992

rule whether more than one research

and development activity utilizing 700

pounds of phosphogypsum would be

permitted at a single facility, as well as

whether or not a single research activity

would be limited to a total of 700

pounds or only to 700 pounds at any

given time for a given activity. EPA

responded that multiple research and

development activities each utilizing

700 pounds of phosphogypsum would

be permitted at a single facility, and that

the 700 pound limit applies only to the

amount of phosphogypsum on hand at

any given time. However, the request for

clarification by TFI also underscores

another limitation in the risk assessment

supporting the 1992 rule. The EPA risk

analysis failed to consider that a given

laboratory worker might be exposed to

radiation as a result of more than one

research and development activity

utilizing phosphogypsum. Therefore,

EPA is requesting comment on whether

there should be any limit on multiple

research and development activities at a

single facility or by a particular

investigator.

Since multiple research and

development activities involving use of

phosphogypsum may be undertaken in

the same laboratory or at the same

facility, EPA believes that it may be

difficult for researchers, as well as

enforcement personnel, to clearly

distinguish between the

phosphogypsum intended for use in

different research and development

activities. In view of this difficulty, it

may be simpler and less cumbersome to

establish a single quantitative limit for

the total amount of phosphogypsum

which may be utilized for all research

and development activities at a single

facility. If quantities of phosphogypsum

in excess of the present limit of 700

pounds would be useful for a particular

research activity, a single larger limit for

all activities could afford greater

flexibility, while still limiting the

overall radon exposure and cancer risk.

The Agency’s new risk assessment for

laboratory use of phosphogypsum

suggests that an overall limit per facility

of 7000 pounds of phosphogypsum

would assure that no individual has an

increased cancer risk over a ten year

period in excess of 1×10¥4. Therefore,

EPA is requesting comment on whether

it would be preferable to establish a

single aggregate limit on laboratory use

of phosphogypsum for research and

development purposes at each facility,

rather than a separate limit for each

individual experiment.

B. Use Outside of a Laboratory Setting

In its petition for reconsideration, TFI

argued that the limitation of 700 pounds

of phosphogypsum for each specific

research and development activity

effectively bans research activities in the

field. EPA responded that 40 CFR

Section 61.205 was designed to permit

research and development activities

involving phosphogypsum to proceed in

the laboratory, not to authorize large

scale field research. The risk assessment
20778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules

underlying the research and

development provision in the 1992 rule

considered the potential hazard of radon

exposure for laboratory workers, but it

did not and could not consider those

other risks to humans or the

environment which might result from

research activities utilizing

phosphogypsum in the field. It was

always the Agency’s expectation that

proposals to conduct field studies

utilizing phosphogypsum would be

submitted for EPA approval pursuant to

40 CFR Section 61.206, and EPA has in

fact approved field research under this

provision since promulgation of the

1992 rule. Accordingly, EPA is also

proposing to clarify the language of 40

CFR Section 61.205 to limit that

provision to research and development

activities undertaken in a controlled

laboratory setting.

C. Sampling and Certification

Requirements for Laboratory Use

In its petition, TFI objected to the

requirement that owners or operators

conduct sampling or measurement of

radium-226 and include such

information in certification documents

accompanying the phosphogypsum

distributed for use in research and

development. TFI noted correctly that

there is no quantitative limit on the

amount of radium-226 which

phosphogypsum distributed for the

research and development use may

contain. Because there is no upper limit

on the amount of radium permitted in

phosphogypsum distributed for research

and development use, EPA has assumed

in its analysis of potential risks

associated with such use that the

phosphogypsum would contain high

levels of radium. EPA believes that in

most instances analysis of the radium226 content in phosphogypsum

distributed for use by laboratories in

research and development projects will

be necessary as part of the research

activity. However, EPA has concluded

that requiring certification documents

accompanying phosphogypsum

distributed for use in research and

development to include quantitative

analyses of radium content is not

necessary to monitor compliance. Thus

EPA is proposing to eliminate the

requirement that owners or operators of

phosphogypsum stacks analyze the

radium-226 content of phosphogypsum

distributed for research and

development and the requirement that

certification documents accompanying

phosphogypsum distributed for research

and development include information

on radium-226 content. EPA requests

comment on this proposal.

D. Sampling Statistics

In its petition, TFI objected that the

formula set forth in 40 CFR Section

61.207(d), which is used to establish the

number of samples necessary to

determine a representative average

radium-226 concentration, is

ambiguous, because it does not specify

the amount of allowable error. EPA

agreed with this objection and stated it

would reconsider this issue.

EPA has carefully evaluated the

methods which can be utilized to

demonstrate that the radium-226

concentration is less than 10 pCi/g in

phosphogypsum removed from a stack

for agricultural purposes, under the

provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.204,

and to measure the radium-226

concentration in phosphogypsum to be

used for other purposes, under the

provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.206.

EPA has concluded that the equations

used for determining the radium-226

concentration in the phosphogypsum

should be clarified, and that the

methods for determining the sample

size and testing needed to demonstrate

that the concentration is less than 10

pCi/g should be revised. The revised

techniques do not utilize the error term

required by the present version of 40

CFR Section 61.207.

The proposed revisions of these

methods are set forth in a document

entitled ‘‘Statistical Procedures for

Certifying Phosphogypsum for Entry

into Commerce, as Required by Section

61.207 of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R.’’

A copy of this document has been

included in the docket for this

rulemaking and is also available from

the EPA contact person listed at the

beginning of this notice. EPA requests

comments concerning the proposed

revisions of the statistical methods

described in this document.

IV. Miscellaneous

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

Eliminating the requirement that

owners or operators of phosphogypsum

stacks analyze the radium-226 content

of phosphogypsum distributed for

research and development and the

associated certification documents will

eliminate the current burden, of 100

hours per year per stack.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

57735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether this regulation,

if promulgated, is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘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 loan 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.

This action will not result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or another adverse economic

impact; it does not create a serious

inconsistency or interfere with another

agency’s action; it does not materially

alter the budgetary impacts of

entitlements, grants, user fees, etc.; and

it does not raise novel legal or policy

issues. Thus, EPA has determined that

this proposal to reconsider Subpart R is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 603 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires

EPA to prepare and make available for

comment an ‘‘initial regulatory

flexibility analysis’’ which describes the

effect of the proposed rule on small

business entities. However, Section

604(b) of the Act provides that an

analysis not be required when the head

of an Agency certifies that the rule will

not, if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

EPA has determined that there will be

no significant impact on any of the

institutions and businesses affected by

the revisions proposed in this notice.

Accordingly, I certify that the revisions

proposed in this notice, if adopted, will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Proposed Rules 20779

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. Under section

203 of the UMRA, before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop a small

government agency plan.

The intended purpose of this

proposed rule is to relax existing

regulatory requirements, rather than to

impose any new enforceable duties on

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. In any event, EPA has

determined that none of the options

discussed in this proposal would, if

adopted, include any Federal mandate

that may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. EPA

has also determined that none of the

options discussed in this proposal

might, if adopted, significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11165 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5501–2]

Adjustment of Reid Vapor Pressure

Lower Limit for Reformulated Gasoline

Sold in the State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is

proposing to amend the lower limit of

the valid range for Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) for reformulated gasoline certified

under the simple model and sold in the

State of California. The lower limit is

proposed to be changed from 6.6

pounds per square inch (psi) to 6.4 psi.

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is promulgating this

amendment as a direct final rule

without prior proposal, because EPA

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the proposed

change is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to the direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If 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. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this notice should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received by June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

proposed action should be addressed to

Public Docket No. A–96–14, Waterside

Mall (Room M–1500), Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket Section,

401 M Street, SW ., Washington, DC

20460. Documents related to this rule

have been placed in the public docket

and may be inspected between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying docket material.

Those wishing to notify EPA of their

intent to submit adverse comment or

request an opportunity for a public

hearing on this action should contact

Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 233–

9013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich, Attorney/

Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Air and Radiation,

(202) 233–9013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities

potentially affected by this action

include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry .... Refiners of California gasoline.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could be potentially regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

entity is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine § 80.42 (c)(1),

note (1), of today’s regulatory action.

You should also carefully examine the

existing provisions at 40 CFR 80.81,

dealing specifically with California

gasoline.

For additional information, see the direct

final rule published in the rules section of

this Federal Register.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11330 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 89 and 90

[FRL–5502–6]

Reduced Certification Reporting

Requirements for New Nonroad

Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Today’s action proposes to

revise certification requirements for new

nonroad spark-ignition engines at or

below 19 kilowatts (60 FR 34582), and

new nonroad compression-ignition

engines at or above 37 kilowatts (59 FR

31306), by reducing the reporting

burden associated with the application

for certification.

In the final rule section of today’s

Federal Register, EPA is issuing these

revisions as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because EPA views the

action as noncontroversial and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the revisions is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to that direct final rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse public comment on any

of the specific issues identified in the

direct final rule, EPA will publish one

action withdrawing the provisions of

the final action corresponding to that

specific issue, and all adverse public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested on commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted (in duplicate, if possible)

to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket,

Attention Docket No. A–95–57, room

M–1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St.,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. The

docket may be inspected at this location

from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m.

weekdays. The docket may also be

reached by telephone at (202) 260–7548.

As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA

for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel Horne, (313) 741–7803.