Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 46849

1CARB submitted the Executive Order on

November 7, 1994 which appended the State’s May

11, 1994 SIP submittal. On November 13, 1992,

CARB submitted a request to EPA to revise the SIP

and opt-out of the CAA CFF vehicle program. In

this submittal CARB committed to supply more

detailed emission reduction data demonstrating

equivalence to the CAA CFF vehicle program, and

requested the EPA to conditionally approve the

commitment pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4).

The conditional approval dated November 29, 1993,

(published at 58 FR 62532) stated that California

would be required to submit a SIP revision fulfilling

the commitment by May 15, 1994.

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this temporary final

rule does not have sufficient

implications for federalism to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) [Pub. L.

104–4, 109 Stat. 48] requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of certain

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments, and the private

sector. UMRA requires a written

statement of economic and regulatory

alternatives for rules that contain

Federal mandates. A ‘‘Federal mandate’’

is a new or additional enforceable duty

imposed on any State, local, or tribal

government, or the private sector. If any

Federal mandate causes those entities to

spend, in the aggregate, $100 million or

more in any one year, the UMRA

analysis is required. This temporary

final rule does not impose Federal

mandates on any State, local, or tribal

governments, or the private sector.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this temporary

final rule and concluded that under

figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g), of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C,

this temporary final rule is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A written Categorical

Exclusion Determination is available in

the docket for inspection or copying

where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191,

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 49

CFR 1.46.

2. Add temporary § 165.T01–094 to

read as follows:

§ 165.T01–094 Safety Zone: Staten Island

Fireworks, Lower New York Bay and Raritan

Bay.

(a) Safety Zone A: (1) Location. All

waters of Lower New York Bay within

a 360-yard radius of the fireworks barge

in approximate position 40°35′11′′ N.,

074°03′42′′ W. (NAD 1983), about 350

yards east of South Beach, Staten Island.

(2) Effective period. This paragraph is

effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on

August 28, 1999. If the event is canceled

for inclement weather, then this

paragraph is effective from 8:30 p.m.

until 10 p.m. on August 29, 1999.

(b) Safety Zone B: (1) Location. All

waters of Raritan Bay in the vicinity of

the Raritan River Cutoff and Ward Point

Bend (West) within a 240-yard radius of

the fireworks barge in approximate

position 40°30′04′′ N., 074°15′35′′ W.

(NAD 1983), about 240 yards east of

Raritan River Cutoff Channel Buoy 2

(LLNR 36595).

(2) Effective period. This paragraph is

effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10 p.m. on

September 4, 1999. If the event is

canceled for inclement weather, then

this paragraph is effective from 8:30

p.m. until 10 p.m. on September 5,

1999.

(c) Effective period. This section is

effective from 8:30 p.m. on August 28,

1999, until 10 p.m. September 5, 1999.

(d) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on-scene-patrol personnel.

These personnel comprise

commissioned, warrant, and petty

officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being

hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by

siren, radio, flashing light, or other

means, the operator of a vessel shall

proceed as directed.

Dated: August 23 1999.

R.E. Bennis,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 99–22333 Filed 8–26–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–81–167; FRL–6427–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision from

the State of California demonstrating

that the California Low Emission

Vehicle (LEV) program qualifies as a

substitute for the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) vehicle program.

The CAA requires states, in order to optout of the CFF vehicle program, to

submit a substitute program for all or a

portion of the program which consists of

measures not otherwise required by the

Act and that achieves at least equal

long-term emission reductions of ozoneproducing and air toxic emissions. EPA

is taking these actions under provisions

of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS), and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is

effective on September 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for

this notice is available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at EPA’s Region IX office, Air

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying parts of the docket.

Copies of related materials are also

available for inspection at the following

location: California Air Resources

Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento,

California 95814–2815

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX Air

Planning Office, (415) 744–1225, or

johnson.roxanne@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. EPA’s Final Action

We are approving a SIP revision

submitted by the State of California,

consisting of Executive Order G–125–

145 containing a substitute for the CAA

CFF vehicle program, dated November

7, 1994.1 The California Air Resources

Board (CARB) Executive Order G–125–

145 is a formal document which sets

forth the substance of California’s optout request and describes the legal

authority under which the SIP revision

was submitted.

Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the

Act require certain states, including

California, to submit for EPA approval

a SIP revision that includes measures to

implement the Clean Fuel Fleet vehicle

program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the

CAA allows states to ‘‘opt-out’’ of the
46850 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

2EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

3Final rulemaking published November 29, 1993

at 59 FR 62532.

CFF vehicle program by submitting for

EPA approval a SIP revision consisting

of a program or programs not otherwise

required by the Act that will result in at

least equivalent long term reductions in

ozone-producing and toxic air

emissions.

II. Background

The six serious and above

nonattainment areas for either one or

both ozone and carbon monoxide (CO)

subject to the CAA Clean Fuel Fleets

program include: Los Angeles-South

Coast Air Basin; Sacramento Metro; San

Diego; San Joaquin Valley; Southeast

Desert Modified AQMD; and Ventura

County. California has designated a

certain portion of the emission benefits

achieved by their LEV program as a

substitute for the CAA fleet program.

California has estimated that the LEV

program will achieve more than 50

times the ROG emission reduction and

more than 30 times the NOX emission

reduction compared to the CAA fleet

program.

On November 7, 1994, CARB

submitted as a SIP revision Executive

Order G–125–145, formally adopting its

request to opt-out of the CAA CFF

vehicle program, and attaching

supporting materials demonstrating that

the State’s LEV program achieves

longterm reductions in emissions of

ozone-forming and air toxic pollutants

at least as large as those that would be

achieved by the CAA CFF vehicle

program. On January 30, 1995, the

revision was found to be complete

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V.2 On April 14, 1997, EPA

proposed approval of the State’s

November submittal and removed the

condition on approval of California’s

opt-out of the CAA CFF vehicle program

in a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) published at 62 FR 18071 3.

III. Response to Public Comments

A. Summary of Comments and

Responses

EPA received comments on the

proposed approval only from the

California Air Resources Board (CARB).

CARB pointed out that the language in

the proposal did not clearly state that

CARB was opting to use a ‘‘portion’’ of

the benefits achieved from their Low

Emission Vehicle (LEV) program to meet

the CAA opt-out requirements.

Response: EPA understands that

CARB intended to rely on a portion of

the emissions reductions achieved by

the LEV program as its substitute for the

CFF program. In the May 1994 SIP

submittal, CARB estimated the

reductions in ozone-forming and toxic

air emissions that would be achieved

through implementation of the CAA

clean fuel fleet program compared to the

LEV program. The estimated emission

benefits for both programs were

calculated for reactive organic gas

(ROG), NOX, and CO emission benefits

for the years 2000 and 2010.

Implementation of the CAA CFF

program is expected to reduce 2.2 tons/

day of ROG, 5.0 tons/day of NOX, and

6.0 tons/day of CO in the year 2000 and

5.0 tons/day of ROG, 10.2 tons/day of

NOX, and 10.4 tons/day of CO in the

year 2010. CARB also provided a

rationale from their LEV program for

long-term emission reductions of toxic

air contaminants. The comparison of the

emission benefits from the LEV program

and the CAA CFF program

demonstrated emission reductions in

the two ozone precursors ROG and NOX

and therefore a concurrent reduction in

the toxic air contaminants included in

ROG. CARB cited an EPA study on

motor vehicle related toxic air

contaminants emphasized those toxics

that ‘‘ * * * pose the greatest risk to

human health or about which

significant uncertainties remain,

including emissions of benzene,

formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene (EPA,

1993).’’ CARB further stated that

emissions of benzene typically account

for over 80 percent of the sum total

exhaust emissions of these three

compounds and are expected to be

reduced by the same relative amount as

total ROG emissions. Formaldehyde and

1,3-butadiene emissions are also

expected to be reduced with ROG

emissions although the relative amounts

appear to be more variable. CARB’s LEV

program is expected to provide longterm reductions in toxic air

contaminants that will exceed levels

anticipated from implementation of the

CAA CFF program due to the reductions

in ROG emissions of 252 tons/day in the

year 2010.

B. Conclusion

We are finalizing the action as

proposed. The emission benefits

analysis performed by CARB

demonstrates that the LEV program

provides long-term reductions in ozone

and toxic air contaminants exceeding

those of the CAA clean fuel fleet

program (see Table 1). It should also be

noted that CARB is not committing the

full benefits demonstrated by the LEV

program, but is committing only that

portion of the benefits equivalent to

those provided by the CAA clean fuel

fleet program. 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.

TABLE 1.—EMISSION BENEFITS: CAA CFF PROGRAM V CA LEV PROGRAM

[Tons/day]

Vehicle Type

CAA CFF Program LEV Program

ROG NOx CO ROG NOx CO

Year 2000:

Passenger Cars ........................................................ 0.84 0.93 3.97 34.61 214.11 38.22

Light-Duty Trucks < 6,001 lbs .................................. 0.28 0.41 0.00 8.27 8.17 11.51

Medium-Duty Vehicles .............................................. 0.09 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.43 0.26

Heavy-Duty Vehicles 1 .............................................. 0.97 3.65 2.00 0.77 0.44 0.11

Total ................................................................... 2.18 4.99 5.97 46.18 223.15 50.10

Year 2010:

Passenger Cars ........................................................ 1.60 1.74 6.62 170.35 222.52 824.73
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 46851

Table 1.—Emission Benefits: CAA CFF Program v CA LEV Program—Continued

[Tons/day]

Vehicle Type

CAA CFF Program LEV Program

ROG NOx CO ROG NOx CO

Light-Duty Trucks < 6,001 lbs .................................. 1.16 1.61 0.00 52.35 86.40 88.77

Medium-Duty Vehicles .............................................. 0.38 0.00 0.00 20.11 5.80 18.02

Heavy-Duty Vehicles ................................................ 1.89 6.83 3.83 9.45 6.72 11.78

Total ................................................................... 5.03 10.18 10.45 252.26 321.44 943.30

1For this analysis, heavy-duty vehicles consist of two categories: (1) light heavy-duty (8501—321.4414,000 lbs) and (2) medium heavy-duty

(14,001–33,000 lbs). The federal clean fuel fleet program applies to vehicles weighing less than 26,000 lbs and the LEV program to those weighing less than 14,000 lbs.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does

not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air 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 create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions 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).

F. 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 annual 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
46852 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 166 / Friday, August 27, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

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 this action

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or

local law, and imposes no new

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,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: August 14, 1999.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(201) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(201) A plan for the following agency

was submitted on November 7, 1994 by

the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) California’s Opt-out Program,

Executive Order G–125–145, dated

November 7, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–22187 Filed 8–26–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AC82

Extensions of Application Period for

Temporary Housing Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule expands the

circumstances under which the

Regional Director may extend the

standard 60-day application period for

assistance provided under the Disaster

Housing Program. This rule also retains

FEMA’s authority to accept an

individual application made after the

application period has closed when the

applicant’s reason for lateness is

justified.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

September 27, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurence W. Zensinger, Response and

Recovery Directorate, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–3642, (facsimile) 202–646–

2730, or (e-mail)

laurence.zensinger@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 6,

1998, we published a proposed rule in

the Federal Register at 63 FR 25010 and

invited comments for 60 days ending on

July 6, 1998. We received one set of

comments from a legal assistance

attorney. While most of the submitted

comments addressed issues beyond the

scope of the proposed rule, those

comments that did address the proposed

rule were in favor of placing the

flexibility for an extension to the

application period in regulation. The

attorney asked for additional

information on two points: (1) What

circumstances may warrant an

extension; and (2) what would be

sufficient justification for a late

application to be accepted. We will

issue a policy to provide guidance on

these points once the final rule is in

effect. We are publishing the final rule

with no substantive changes from what

we published as a proposed rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Consideration. We

have not prepared an environmental

impact assessment.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action within the meaning of

section 2(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735. To

the extent possible, this rule adheres to

the regulatory principles set forth in

Executive Order 12866. The Office of

Management and Budget has not

reviewed it under the provisions of

Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain a collection

of information requirement as described

in section 3504(h) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This rule does not involve any

policies that have federalism

implications under Executive Order

12612, Federalism, dated October 26,

1987.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778.

Congressional Review of Agency

Rulemaking

We have submitted this final rule to

the Congress and to the General

Accounting Office under the

Congressional Review of Agency

Rulemaking Act, Public Law 104–121.

The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ within the

meaning of that Act. It is an

administrative action in support of

normal day-to-day activities. It does not

result in nor is it likely to result in an

annual effect on the economy of

$100,000,000 or more; it will not result

in a major increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; and it

will not have ‘‘significant adverse

effects’’ on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises.

This final rule is exempt (1) from the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and (2) from the

Paperwork Reduction Act. The rule is

not an unfunded Federal mandate

within the meaning of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public

Law 104–4. It does not meet the

$100,000,000 threshold of that Act, and

any enforceable duties are imposed as a

condition of Federal assistance or a duty

arising from participation in a voluntary

Federal program.