36326 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

requirements and impose any new

federal requirements.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA

Administrator takes final disapproval

action on a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated

nonattainment based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b) of

the Act (unless the deficiency has been

corrected within 18 months of such

disapproval). Section 179(b) provides

two sanctions available to the

Administrator: revocation of highway

funding and the imposition of emission

offset requirements. The 18-month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date established

in the final disapproval action. If the

deficiency is not corrected within 6

months of the imposition of the first

sanction, the second sanction will

apply. This sanctions process is set forth

in 40 CFR 52.31. Today’s action serves

only to propose disapproval of the

Commonwealth’s SIP revision, and does

not constitute final agency action. Thus,

the sanctions process described above

does not commence with today’s action.

Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the federal

transportation conformity rules (40 CFR

51.448(b)) state that if the EPA

disapproves a submitted control strategy

implementation plan revision which

initiates the sanction process under Act

section 179, the conformity status of the

transportation plan and transportation

improvement plan shall lapse 120 days

after the EPA’s disapproval.

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

Administrative Procedures 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.

This disapproval action for the

Pennsylvania 15% plan for Philadelphia

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

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

The Regional Administrator’s

decision to approve or disapprove the

SIP revision will be based on whether

it meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean

Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52 and

81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental regulations,

Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 1, 1996.

W. T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17546 Filed 7–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 5536–2]

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: National

Emission Standard for Radon

Emissions From Phosphogypsum

Stacks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of extension of Public

Comment Period.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA)is extending the comment

period for the rulemaking to reconsider

40 CFR 61.205 and 40 CFR 61.207

which appeared in the Federal Register

on May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20775). The

extension of the comment period is

provided in response to a request by a

trade association representing the

affected industry. The public comment

period for this proposed rule was to end

on July 8, 1996. The comment period is

extended to July 26, 1996.

DATES: EPA will continue to accept

public comments on this proposed rule

until July 26, 1996. In addition,

pursuant to Section 307(d)(5) of the

Clean Air Act, the public may submit

rebuttal and supplemental information

to the docket for thirty (30) days after

the August 1, 1996 public hearing. For

more information on the public hearing,

see 61 FR 33053 (June 26, 1996).

ADDRESSES: Comments must be

submitted, in duplicate, to: Central

Docket Section (6101), Environmental

Protection Agency, ATTN: Air Docket

No. 94–57, Washington, D.C. 20460. The

docket is available for public inspection

between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30

pm, Monday through Friday, in Room

M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying. The FAX number is (202) 260–

4400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Thornton, or for technical

information, Rita Cestaric, at: Office of

Radiation and Indoor Air (6602J),

Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 233–9677.

The proposed rule and supplementary

information are located in Air Docket

No. 94–57.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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. Pursuant to that decision, EPA

convened 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

used under 40 CFR 61.207 to establish

the average radium-226 concentration

for phosphogypsum to be removed from

the phosphogypsum stack. See 61 FR

20775 (May 8, 1996) for a more detailed

description of the proposed rule.

Reopening of comment period: The

Comment Period for this proposed rule

was scheduled to end on July 8, 1996.

EPA received a request to extend the

period to submit comments from TFI.

After considering this request, EPA has

decided to extend the comment period

for this rulemaking to July 26, 1996.

Dated: July 5, 1996.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–17578 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5531–2]

Approval of State Programs and

Delegation of Federal Authorities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action revises the

‘‘Approval of State Programs and

Delegation of Federal Authorities’’

(subpart E). These amendments are

being made to improve the clarity of

subpart E. Because the amendments

clarify regulatory text and serve to

minimize administrative burden and

provide more flexibility to States using

this rulemaking, the Agency does not
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 36327

anticipate receiving adverse comments.

Consequently the amendments are also

being issued as a direct final rule. If no

significant, timely adverse comments

are 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 this rule. If

significant timely comments are

received on any amendment, that

amendment of the direct final rule will

be withdrawn and all public comments

received on that amendment will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the relevant portions of this

proposed rule. Because the Agency will

not institute a second comment period

on this proposed rule, any parties

interested in commenting should do so

during this comment period.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before August 9, 1996,

unless a public hearing is requested by

July 22, 1996. If a hearing is requested,

written comments must be received by

August 26, 1996.

Public hearing. Anyone requesting a

public hearing must contact the EPA no

later than July 22, 1996. If a hearing is

held, it will take place on July 25, 1996,

beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (6102),

Attention Docket Number A–96–09 (see

docket section below), Room M–1500,

U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 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. Pamela J. Smith, U.S.

EPA, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina, 27711, telephone (919) 541–

5319.

Docket. Docket No. A–96–09,

containing supporting information, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M–1500, First Floor, 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–7548 or 260–7549. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Gil Wood at (919) 541–5272 or Ms.

Sheila Q. Milliken at (919) 541–2625

Integrated Implementation Group,

Information Transfer and Program

Integration Division (MD–12), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further supplemental information, the

detailed rationale, and the rule

amendments, see the information

provided in the direct final rule in the

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated rulemaking on subpart E

were submitted to and approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). A copy of this Information

Collection Request (ICR) document

(with an OMB approval control number

2060–0264) may be obtained from the

Regulatory Information Division (Code

2136), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s changes to the rulemaking

will have no significant impact on the

information collection burden estimates

made previously. Actually, the burden

will be reduced slightly. Consequently,

the Information Collection Request has

not been revised.

Executive Order 12866 Review

The subpart E rulemaking,

promulgated on December 26, 1993 was

considered a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866

[58 FR 5173, dated October 4, 1993] and

submitted to the OMB for review.

According to the executive order, a

‘‘significant regulatory action is 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, of

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 is not considered a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of this Executive Order.

The amendments issued today clarify

the rule and add administrative

requirements which increase the

flexibility to States in terms of gaining

approval of their respective State

programs. The EPA concludes these

amendments would have no adverse

impact and therefore, do not need to

undergo OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 rulemaking

imposes no adverse economic impacts,

a regulatory flexibility analysis has not

been prepared.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 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

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. Today’s rule

contains no Federal mandates (under

the regulatory provisions of title II of the

UMRA) for State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. The

UMRA generally excludes from the

definition of ‘‘Federal

intergovernmental mandate’’ duties that

arise from participation in a voluntary

Federal program. The EPA has also

determined that this rule does not

contain a 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. Thus,

today’s rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.
36328 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–17324 Filed 7–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 136

[FRL–5535–4]

A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility

and Streamlining Approval of

Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Office of Science and

Technology within EPA’s Office of

Water is conducting a public meeting on

approaches to method flexibility and

streamlining the proposal and

promulgation of analytical methods at

40 CFR Part 136 under Section 304(h) of

the Clean Water Act and at 40 CFR Part

141 under Sections 1401 and 1445 of

the Safe Drinking Water Act. This

public meeting on streamlining EPA’s

water methods approval programs will

be held in conjunction with the Trace

Metals Workshop announced

concurrently in the Federal Register.

This public meeting follows a series

of three public meetings on streamlining

held in Seattle, Washington on

September 28, 1995, in Boston,

Massachusetts on January 25, 1996, and

in Chicago, Illinois on February 14,

1996. The Seattle meeting was

announced in an FR notice titled, ‘‘A

Public Meeting and Availability of

Documents on Streamlining Approval of

Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part 136

and flexibility in Existing Test

Methods’’ [FRL–5294–6] published in

the Federal Register on September 12,

1995 at 60 FR 47325. This FR notice

provided extensive supplementary

information regarding the 304(h)

streamlining effort and made available

several supporting documents. The

supporting documents and summaries

of the Seattle, Boston, and Chicago

public meetings can be obtained

through the contact identified in this

notice.

DATES: EPA will conduct the public

meeting on 304(h) streamlining on

Wednesday, July 24, 1996, in Denver,

Colorado. Registration for the meeting

will begin at 8 a.m. The meeting will be

held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in

the USGS Lecture Hall, Building 25,

Denver Federal Center, 6th & Kipling,

Denver, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions concerning this notice can be

directed to Marion Thompson by phone

at (202) 260–7117 or by facsimile at

(202) 260–7185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting

arrangements are being coordinated by

DynCorp, Inc. For information on

registration, contact Cindy Simbanin,

300 N. Lee Street, Suite 500, Alexandria,

VA 22314. Phone: (703) 519–1386.

Facsimile number: (703) 684–0610.

Space is limited and reservations are

being taken on a first come, first served

basis. No fees will be charged to attend.

Hotel reservations may be made by

contacting the Comfort Suites in

Lakewood, Colorado at (303) 231–9929.

The hotel address is 11909 W. 6th

Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80033.

Single occupancy guest rates are $83.55,

including tax. When making

reservations, you must specify that you

are affiliated with the EPA Meeting to

qualify for the quoted rate.

Accommodations are limited, so

please make your reservations early.

The Comfort Suites does not provide

transportation to/from the airport or to

the Federal Center. Guests should take

the Airport shuttle to/from the airport

and use taxi service to the Federal

Center. The Federal Center is within

walking distance of the Comfort Suites,

but it is not an easy walk due to the

location of the main gate into the

Federal Center.

Title: A Public Meeting on Method

Flexibility and Streamlining Approval

of Analytical Methods at 40 CFR Part

136

Abstract

Under Section 304(h) of the Clean

Water Act, EPA is responsible for

promulgating analytical methods at 40

CFR Part 136 for use in monitoring

pollutant discharges. EPA uses these

methods to support development of

effluent guidelines promulgated at 40

CFR Parts 400–499, and both EPA and

the regulated community use the

methods for establishing compliance

with National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits

and other monitoring purposes. The

methods approved for use at 40 CFR

Part 136 have been developed by EPA,

by industrial associations such as the

American Society for Testing Materials,

and by other governmental agencies

such as the U.S. Geological Survey. In

the past, the methods proposal and

promulgation process has been

cumbersome, and has not provided the

flexibility to take advantage of new

analytical technologies in a timely

manner. In response to the

Administration’s Environmental

Technology Initiative, EPA is proposing

a comprehensive Section 304(h)

streamlining initiative to increase

method flexibility to allow use of

emerging technologies and to expedite

the method approval process, to

encourage development of new methods

and technologies by organizations

outside of EPA.

The Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water within EPA’s Office of

Water is also developing approaches to

increasing method flexibility and

streamlining the approval of analytical

methods at 40 CFR Part 141 under

Sections 1401 and 1445 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act. EPA is coordinating

these efforts with the CWA Section

304(h) streamlining effort in an overall

initiative to streamline its water

methods approval programs.

EPA has held three public meetings to

outline plans for method flexibility and

for streamlining proposal and

promulgation of new methods, and to

elicit stakeholder views regarding these

plans. EPA had compiled and evaluated

stakeholder input received at the public

meetings and has revised its approach to

streamlining accordingly.

Agenda Topics

The purpose of the public meetings

on 304(h) streamlining is to outline

plans for method flexibility and for

streamlining proposal and promulgation

of new methods at 40 CFR Part 136

under Section 304(h) of the Clean Water

Act, and to elicit stakeholder views

regarding these plans. The following

topics will be addressed at the public

meetings:

• Increasing method flexibility to

allow use of new technologies and to

identify modifications that are

acceptable within the scope of existing

methods and do not require proposal of

an alternate method

—Interpretation of flexibility in existing

40 CFR Part 136 methods

—Advantages and disadvantages of

method flexibility (no flexibility,

limited flexibility, and unlimited

flexibility)

—Proposal to allow nearly unlimited

‘‘front-end’’ method modifications as

long as the determinative technique is

not changed and method performance

is demonstrated to be equivalent

• Establishing standardized quality

control (QC) and QC acceptance criteria

to support determination of method

equivalency

• Streamlining the method proposal

process to take advantage of emerging

analytical technologies in a timely

manner

—Standardized format for preparing

new methods