21414 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

C. 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.

This approval does not create any

new requirements. Therefore, I certify

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

Act, 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).

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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 the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under section 205, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated today 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 preexisting 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.

D. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 9, 1996. 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)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Transportation conformity,

Transportation-air quality planning,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11759 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5503–2]

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Amendment

to Regulations Governing Equivalent

Emission Limitations by Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On May 20, 1994, the Agency

promulgated a rule in the Federal

Register (59 FR 26429) governing the

establishment of equivalent emission

limitations by permit, pursuant to

section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act (Act).

After the effective date of a Title V

permit program in a State, each owner

or operator of a major source in a source

category for which the EPA was

scheduled to, but failed to promulgate a

section 112(d) emission standard will be

required to obtain an equivalent

emission limitation by permit. The

permit application must be submitted to

the Title V permitting authority 18

months after the EPA’s missed

promulgation date. This action proposes

to amend the original Regulations

Governing Equivalent Emission

Limitations by Permit rule to delay the

section 112(j) permit application

deadline for all 4-year source categories

listed in the regulatory schedule by 180

days until November 15, 1996. This

action is needed to alleviate

unnecessary paperwork for both major

source owners or operators and

permitting agencies. Because the

changes are merely to delay the permit

application deadline for all 4 year

source categories, the EPA does not

anticipate receiving adverse comments.

Consequently the revisions are also

being issued as a direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register. If no significant adverse

comments are timely received, no

further action will be taken with respect

to this proposal, and the direct final rule

will become final on the date provided

in that action.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before June 10, 1996,

unless a hearing is requested by May 20,

1996. If a hearing is requested, written

comments must be received by June 24,

1996.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than May 20, 1996. If a hearing is

held, it will take place on May 28, 1996,

beginning at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket No. A–93–32 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460. The EPA requests that a separate

copy also be sent to the contact person

listed below.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at the EPA’s Office

of Administration Auditorium, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons

interested in attending the hearing or

wishing to present oral testimony

should notify Ms. Yvonne Chandler,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5627.

Docket. Docket No. A–93–32,

containing the supporting information

for the original Regulations Governing

Equivalent Emission Limitations by

Permit rule is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21415

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (6102),

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460, or by calling (202) 260–7548. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

James Szykman or Mr. Anthony Wayne,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone (919) 541–2452

(Szykman) or (919) 541–5439 (Wayne).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no

significant, adverse comments are

timely received, no further activity is

contemplated in relation to this

proposed rule, and the direct final rule

in the final rules section of this Federal

Register will automatically go into effect

on the date specified in that rule. If

significant adverse comments are timely

received, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn, and all public comment

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule. Because the EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this proposed rule, any

parties interested in commenting should

do so during this comment period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

provisions, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Administrative

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis

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

12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

B. Impact on Reporting Requirements

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated rule for Regulations

Governing Equivalent Emission

Limitations by Permit were submitted to

and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget. A copy of this

Information Collection Request (ICR)

document (OMB control number 2060–

0266) may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division (2136), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. Today’s proposed

revisions to the deadline for submittal of

section 112(j) permit applications does

not affect the information collection

burden estimates made previously.

Therefore, the ICR has not been revised.

C. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this proposed

rulemaking imposes no economic

impacts, adverse or otherwise, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

business entities.

D. Reduction of Governmental Burden

Executive Order 12875 (‘‘Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership’’) is

designed to reduce the burden to State,

local, and Tribal governments of the

cumulative effect of unfunded Federal

mandates. The Order recognizes the

need for these entities to be free from

unnecessary Federal regulation to

enhance their ability to address

problems they face and provides for

Federal agencies to grant waivers to

these entities from discretionary Federal

requirements. The Order applies to any

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local, or Tribal government. The EPA

anticipates that there will be no

additional cost burden imposed on

State, local, and Tribal governments as

a result of today’s action. Indeed, the

purpose of the action is to reduce

unnecessary burden on permitting

agencies.

E. Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires that

each Federal agency shall make

achieving environmental justice part of

its mission by identifying and

addressing, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

of its programs, policies, and activities

on minority and low-income

populations. Today’s action will help

ensure timely compliance and the

application of consistent regulatory

requirements by allowing the section

112(d) MACT standards to become

effective without triggering an

unnecessary section 112(j) process.

Therefore, no adverse human health or

environmental effects are anticipated as

a result of today’s action.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), the 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 the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

action proposed today 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. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act do not apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practices and

procedures, Air pollution control,

Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 3, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11738 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[AZR92–0004; FRL–5503–8]

Clean Air Act Reclassification;

Arizona-Phoenix Nonattainment Area;

Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the

Phoenix, Arizona carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment area has not attained the

CO national ambient air quality

standard (NAAQS) by the Clean Air Act

(CAA) mandated attainment date for

moderate nonattainment areas,

December 31, 1995. This proposed

finding is based on EPA’s review of

monitored air quality data for

compliance with the CO NAAQS. If EPA

takes final action on this proposed

finding, the Phoenix CO nonattainment

area will be reclassified by operation of

law as a serious nonattainment area.

The intended effect of such a