Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 18903

June 9, 2000 and no further action will

be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

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.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). For

the same reason, this rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 9, 2000.

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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 15, 2000.

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 et seq.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(268)(i)(B) and

(c)(270)(i)(E) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(268) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Mojave Desert Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1116 revised on April 26,

1999.

* * * * *

(270) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Antelope Valley Air Pollution

Control District.

(1) Rule 1151 adopted on July 20,

1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–8526 Filed 4–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–237–0221; FRL–6570–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California—

South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a state implementation plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

California to provide for attainment of

the 1-hour ozone national ambient air

quality standard (NAAQS) in the Los

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area

(South Coast). EPA is approving the SIP

revision under provisions of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on

SIP submittals, SIPs for national

primary and secondary ambient air

quality standards, and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This action is effective on May

10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for

this notice is available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at EPA’s Region IX office. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying parts of the docket.

18904 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1The nonattainment area includes all of Orange

County and the more populated portions of Los

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.

2We 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). CARB requested

that we ‘‘parallel process’’ action on the 1997 plan

and 1999 amendment before SIP submittal of the

1999 amendment.

3For information on the 1994 ozone SIP, see 62

FR 1150 (January 8, 1997). For information on the

Public Consultative Process, see 64 FR 39923 (July

23, 1999).

4This approval makes enforceable the SCAQMD

commitment to achieve the overall emission

reduction schedule and thus creates the possibility

of SCAQMD control measure adjustments and

substitutions under the approved SIP, so long as the

overall emission reduction obligations are met as

described in Chapter 2 of the 1999 amendment.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

The SIP materials are also

electronically available at: http://

www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901, (415) 744–1288, or

jesson.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

We are finalizing approval of the 1997

ozone plan for the South Coast, as

revised by a 1999 amendment.1 The

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) adopted the 1997

plan on November 15, 1996, and the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

submitted the plan to us on February 5,

1997. SCAQMD adopted the 1999

amendment on December 10, 1999, and

CARB submitted the plan to us on

February 4, 2000. EPA determined the

submittal to be complete on March 15,

2000.2 In this document, we refer to the

1997 plan and 1999 amendment as ‘‘the

revised ozone plan,’’ which is intended

to replace the 1994 ozone SIP except for

that portion of the SIP that consists of

State control measures and EPA’s

commitment relating to a Public

Consultative Process on national mobile

sources.3

On February 8, 2000, we proposed

approval of the revised ozone plan with

respect to the revised emissions

inventory, the modeled attainment

demonstration, control measures,

commitment to achieve specified

emission reductions in future years,

revised rate-of-progress (ROP) plan, and

emissions budget. Please see that

document (65 FR 6091–6102) for further

details on our proposed action,

applicable CAA requirements, and

additional information on the affected

area.

II. Public Comments

We received 3 public comments.

SCAQMD supported the proposed

action, but requested a minor correction.

The proposal stated that the South Coast

Air Basin recorded the largest number of

ozone violations in the country in 1999

based on preliminary data from EPA’s

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS). 65 FR 6092. We agree

with SCAQMD that updated AIRS data

now show that the basin had the second

highest number of violations in 1999.

Over the past three years (1997–1999),

however, the South Coast Air Basin did

have the largest number of ozone

violations in the country.

A representative of the National Paint

and Coatings Association commented

regarding the purported technological

and economic infeasibility of

SCAQMD’s coatings control measures,

and issues regarding public notice and

hearing requirements relative to

SCAQMD’s revisions to Rule 1113.

As noted by the commenter, we are

barred from considering claims of

economic or technological infeasibility

in determining whether to approve a

submitted SIP.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 429

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The comment regarding Rule 1113 is

not germane to our proposed action on

the revised ozone plan, which does not

address any approval issues associated

with revisions to Rule 1113. When we

take action on the SIP revision to Rule

1113, we will determine whether or not

SCAQMD met public notice and public

hearing requirements when the rule was

revised. If the commentor continues to

believe that these requirements were not

met, he must resubmit comments during

the public comment period for our

rulemaking on the revisions to

SCAQMD Rule 1113.

A private citizen argued that the

emissions inventory does not meet the

CAA section 172(c)(3) requirements and

should not be approved. The commenter

stated that the control factors associated

with California’s enhanced motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program are known to be bogus. The

commenter referenced a CARB letter

dated January 7, 2000, stating: ‘‘There

have been a number of legislative and

operational changes to the I/M program

that have reduced its effectiveness and

associated air quality benefits.’’

We addressed this issue in our

proposed approval of the plan, noting

that the revised ozone plan represents

more current and accurate information

than was used in the 1994 ozone SIP

and complies with acceptable

methodologies for inventory

preparation, but that the responsible

agencies are in the process of updating

and refining emissions reductions,

including those associated with the I/M

program. 65 FR 6094, 6100.

When improved information is

available to refine the estimate of

emissions reductions associated with

the I/M program, CARB and SCAQMD

will use this information in a

comprehensive ozone plan revision,

scheduled for adoption and submittal as

a SIP revision in 2001. As discussed in

our proposed approval, this future

revision will include a revised control

strategy if needed to provide for

expeditious attainment.

We reaffirm our finding that the

emissions inventory portion of the

revised ozone plan not only improves

on the accuracy of the 1994 ozone SIP

but also meets CAA requirements that

the inventory be comprehensive,

accurate, and current. Therefore, we are

finalizing approval of the revised ozone

plan with respect to the requirements of

CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1).

III. EPA Final Action

In this document, we are finalizing

the following actions on the revised

ozone plan. For each action, we indicate

the page on which the element is

discussed in our proposal.

(1) Approval of the revised baseline

and projected emissions inventories

under CAA sections 172(c)(3) and

182(a)(1)—6094;

(2) Approval of the SCAQMD

commitment to implement those

measures that had been adopted in

regulatory form between November

1994 and September 1999, by the dates

specified to achieve the identified

emission reductions, under CAA section

110(k)(3)—6095 (Table 1);

(3) Approval of the SCAQMD

commitment to adopt and implement

the short- and intermediate-term control

measures in the revised ozone plan by

the dates specified to achieve the

identified emission reductions, under

CAA section 110(k)(3)—6095 (Table 2);

(4) Approval of the SCAQMD

commitment to adopt and implement

control measures to achieve the

identified emission reduction

commitments 4 for 1999 to 2008, as

specified in Table 2–6 of the 1999

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 18905

amendment, under CAA section

110(k)(3)—6097 (Table 3);

(5) Deletion of 1994 ozone SIP control

measures identified in the 1999

Amendment—6097 (Table 4);

(6) Approval of the SCAQMD

commitment to adopt and implement

the long-term control measures in the

revised ozone plan by the dates

specified to achieve the identified

emission reductions, under CAA section

110(k)(3) and 182(e)(5)—6098 (Table 5);

(7) Approval of the revised rate-ofprogress plan for the milestone years

1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010, under

CAA sections 182(c)(2)—6099 (Table 6);

(8) Approval of the revised attainment

demonstration under CAA sections

182(c)(2) and (e)—6100;

(9) Approval of the revised motor

vehicle emissions budgets for purposes

of transportation conformity under CAA

section 176(c)(2)(A). Approval of the

revised ozone plan also establishes new

emissions budgets for ROP milestone

years for purposes of general conformity

under CAA section 176(c)(1)—6100–1

(Table 8).

Upon the effective date of our

approval of the revised ozone plan, this

plan replaces and supersedes the 1994

ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin

with the exception of the State control

measures for mobile sources, consumer

products, and pesticides, and EPA’s

commitment. The State measures

remain unchanged from those approved

as part of the 1994 ozone SIP until we,

in separate action, approve revised

measures.

As discussed in our proposed action,

CARB and SCAQMD intend to adopt

and submit a comprehensive revision to

the ozone plan in 2001. 65 FR 6101. We

intend to work with CARB and

SCAQMD to ensure the timely

completion of this new comprehensive

revision to refine and enhance the

technical foundations of the attainment

demonstration and update the control

measures, as necessary.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

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 Executive

Order 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 Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. 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

affects 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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must 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 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

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order 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

18906 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 69 / Monday, April 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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 the approval

action promulgated 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

approves pre-existing 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.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 9, 2000.

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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: March 20, 2000.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting 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 et seq.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(247)(i)(A)(3) and

(c)(272) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(247) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Baseline and projected emissions

inventories and ozone attainment

demonstration, as contained in the

South Coast 1997 Air Quality

Management Plan for ozone.

* * * * *

(272) New and amended plan for the

following agency was submitted on

February 4, 2000, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) SCAQMD commitment to adopt

and implement short- and intermediateterm control measures; SCAQMD

commitment to adopt and implement

long-term control measures; SCAQMD

commitment to achieve overall

emissions reductions for the years

1999–2008; SCAQMD commitment to

implement those measures that had

been adopted in regulatory form

between November 1994 and September

1999; rate-of-progress plan for the 1999,

2002, 2005, 2008, and 2010 milestone

years; amendment to the attainment

demonstration in the 1997 Air Quality

Management Plan for ozone; and motor

vehicle emissions budgets for purposes

of transportation conformity, as

contained in the 1999 Amendment to

the South Coast 1997 Air Quality

Management Plan.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–8534 Filed 4–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–6570–4]

RIN 2060–AC42

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources and Guidelines for

Control of Existing Sources: Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), the EPA issued a final rule

entitled ‘‘Standards of Performance for

New Stationary Sources and Guidelines

for Control of Existing Sources:

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,’’

published in the Federal Register on

March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905). A

subsequent direct final rule, published