46618 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. 

Copies of the State submittals are 

available at the following addresses for 

inspection during normal business 

hours:

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket 6102), 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. Steven M. Scofield, 404/

562–9034. 

Division of Air Pollution Control, 

Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, L & C 

Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street, 

Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1531. 

615/532–0554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven M. Scofield; Regulatory 

Development Section; Air Planning 

Branch; Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street, SW.; 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Scofield can also be reached by phone 

at (404) 562–9034 or by electronic mail 

at scofield.steve@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register.

Dated: April 22, 2002. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 02–17700 Filed 7–15–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 264–0350b; FRL–7231–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from soil 

decontamination operations. We are 

proposing to approve the local rule to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by August 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) at 

our Region IX office during normal 

business hours. You may also see copies 

of the submitted SIP revisions at the 

following locations: 

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95812. 

Ventura County Air pollution Control 

District, 669 County Square Dr., 2nd 

FL., Ventura CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses local rule, VCAPCD 

74.29. In the Rules and Regulations 

section of this Federal Register, we are 

approving this local rule in a direct final 

action without prior proposal because 

we believe this SIP revision is not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Anyone interested in 

commenting should do so at this time, 

we do not plan to open a second 

comment period. If we do not receive 

adverse comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action.

Dated: May 30, 2002. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 02–17697 Filed 7–15–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–079–SIPS; FRL–7246–3] 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

Progress, Attainment, and 

Maintenance State Implementation 

Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, 

and Nitrogen Dioxide; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: At the request of the State of 

California, EPA is proposing to limit the 

duration of our approvals of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (‘‘budgets’’) 

in certain existing California state 

implementation plans (SIPs) that 

provide for progress, attainment, and 

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone, 8-

hour carbon monoxide (CO), and annual 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Specifically, we propose to limit our 

approvals of the existing budgets to last 

only until the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy finding for new budgets that 

replace these existing approved budgets 

(i.e., budgets for the same pollutant, 

Clean Air Act requirement and year). 

The State of California will submit new 

budgets as part of comprehensive 

revisions to certain approved progress, 

attainment, and maintenance plans that 

reflect updated information and a new 

version of California’s motor vehicle 

emission factor model. On the effective 

date of EPA’s adequacy finding for a 

new budget our approval of the existing 

budget would terminate and thus the 

new adequate budget would apply 

instead of the existing budget for 

transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposal must be received by August 15, 

2002.

ADDRESSES: Please mail comments to: 

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

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 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. 

Copies of the SIP materials are also 

available for inspection at the following 

location: California Air Resources 

Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 

California, 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–

3957, or jesson.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What Approved SIPs Are Affected by 

this Proposed Action? 

B. What Is Transportation Conformity? 

C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets? 

D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Usually Apply? 

II. What Are We Proposing Today? 

A. What Modification to Our Approvals of 

the Existing Budgets Has the State 

Requested?

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 46619

B. How Are We Proposing to Modify Our 

Approval of the Budgets? 

III. Request for Public Comment 

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background 

A. What Approved SIPs Are Affected by 

this Proposed Action? 

In Table 1 below, labeled ‘‘California 

SIPs Whose Budget Approvals Are 

Being Modified,’’ we list those SIPs in 

California that would be affected by this 

proposed action.

TABLE 1.—CALIFORNIA SIPS WHOSE BUDGET APPROVALS ARE BEING MODIFIED

Area Pollutant Plan Adoption Submittal FR Approval 

Antelope Valley (SE 

Desert).

Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 9/9/94, 12/9/94, 4/12/

96.

11/15/94, 12/29/94, 7/

10/96.

1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Bakersfield .................. CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Chico ........................... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Coachella (SE Desert) Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 9/9/94, 12/9/94, 4/12/

96.

11/15/94, 12/29/94, 7/

10/96.

1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Fresno ......................... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Kern (SE Desert) ........ Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 12/1/94 ...................... 1/28/94 ...................... 1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Lake Tahoe—North .... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Lake Tahoe—South .... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Modesto ...................... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ...... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Mojave (SE Desert) .... Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 10/26/94 .................... 11/15/94 .................... 1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Monterey ..................... Ozone .............. Maintenance Plan ..... 5/25/94, 10/19/94 ...... 7/14/94, 11/14/94 ...... 1/17/97 62 FR 2597. 

Sacramento ................. Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 12/1/94, 12/12/94, 12/

13/94, 12/14/94, 12/

20/94.

12/29/94 .................... 1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Sacramento ................. CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

San Diego ................... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

San Francisco Bay 

Area.

CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

South Coast ................ Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 11/15/96, 12/10/99 .... 2/5/97, 2/4/00 ............ 4/10/00 65 FR 18903. 

South Coast ................ NO2 ................. Maintenance Plan ..... 11/15/96 .................... 2/5/97 ........................ 7/24/98 63 FR 39747. 

Stockton ...................... CO ................... Maintenance Plan ..... 4/26/96 ...................... 7/3/96 ........................ 3/31/98 63 FR 15305. 

Ventura ....................... Ozone .............. Attainment Plan ......... 11/8/94, 12/19/95 ...... 11/15/94, 7/12/96 ...... 1/8/97 62 FR 1150. 

Note: The attainment plans typically also address CAA provisions relating to progress. 

B. What Is Transportation Conformity? 

Transportation conformity is a Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirement for 

metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation to ensure that federally 

supported highway and transit activities 

are consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the 

SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that an 

action will not cause or contribute to 

new violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment. 

The conformity requirements are 

established by CAA section 176(c). We 

issued the transportation conformity 

rule (40 CFR part 93) to implement this 

CAA requirement. 

Under section 176(c), a determination 

of conformity must be based on the most 

recent estimates of emissions, and such 

emissions estimates must be determined 

from the most recent population, 

employment, travel and congestion 

estimates as determined by the MPO or 

other agency authorized to make such 

estimates. To comply with section 

176(c), motor vehicle emissions 

estimates for conformity purposes must 

keep pace with the periodic updates of 

population, employment, travel and 

congestion estimates. Section 

176(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act 

requires MPOs and DOTs to determine 

the conformity of transportation plans 

and transportation improvement 

programs no less frequently than every 

three years even in the absence of any 

revision to the underlying progress, 

attainment, or maintenance SIP. See 40 

CFR 93.104 for the frequency 

requirements in the conformity rule. 

C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets?

Progress, attainment, or maintenance 

SIPs necessarily include estimates of 

motor vehicle emissions to help areas 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. These 

estimates act as a budget or ceiling for 

emissions from motor vehicles, and are 

used in transportation conformity to 

determine whether transportation plans, 

programs and, in some circumstances, 

individual transportation projects 

conform to the progress, attainment or 

maintenance SIPs. In order for 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects to conform, estimated 

emissions from transportation plans, 

programs and projects must not exceed 

the emission budgets contained in the 

applicable progress, attainment or 

maintenance SIPs. 

In California, new planning data are 

becoming available that have not as yet 

been incorporated into the SIPs. 

However, the CAA requires that the 

latest planning assumptions be used to 

make conformity determinations. As a 

result it becomes difficult to determine 

conformity to SIPs that are based on 

older planning assumptions. Therefore, 

the State has requested that we limit our 

approval of SIP budgets so that budgets 

that incorporate new planning data will 

apply for conformity as soon as they are 

adequate rather than when they are 

approved. As explained below, today’s 

proposal sets forth a means to provide 

for the earliest possible use of new 

emissions budgets in the transportation 

planning and conformity process 

consistent with the fundamental SIP 

goal of expeditious attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Usually Apply? 

According to 40 CFR 93.118(e) of the 

transportation conformity rule, budgets 

in a submitted SIP can apply for 

conformity purposes even before we 

have approved the SIP, under certain 

circumstances. First, there must not be 

any other approved SIP budgets that 

have been established for the same time 

frame and with respect to the same CAA 

requirements. For example, if there is 

already an approved attainment

46620 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

1See CARB, Methodology for Estimating 

Emissions from On-Road Motor Vehicles, 1996. EPA 

approved EMFAC 7G for use in transportation plan 

and program conformity analyses in a letter from 

David Howekamp, EPA, to Michael P. Kenny, 

CARB, dated April 16, 1998. On January 11, 2002 

(67 FR 1464), we approved SF Bay AreaEMFAC2000 for use only in the Bay Area ozone 

SIP, but we set certain conditions on the approval 

as explained in that notice due to significant 

technical limitations in the model.

2Letter from Michael P. Kenny (CARB) to Jack 

Broadbent (EPA), Michael G. Ritchie (FHWA), and 

Leslie T. Rogers (FTA). A copy of this letter is in 

the docket to this rulemaking.

3 In cases where there are currently no approved 

budgets, the applicability of new budgets would 

occur when EPA found the budgets adequate under 

40 CFR 93.118(e).

4CAA section 110(k) provides for a completeness 

determination 6 months after submittal of a SIP 

revision, unless we have before that date deemed 

the submittal complete or incomplete, and requires 

us to take final action on the submittal within 1 

year of the date on which the submittal became 

complete.

demonstration SIP that establishes 

budgets for the attainment date, and the 

State submits a revision to those 

budgets, the newly submitted budgets 

cannot apply for conformity purposes 

until we have approved them into the 

SIP. 

Second, submitted SIP budgets cannot 

be used unless we have formally found 

that the submitted SIP budgets are 

adequate for conformity purposes. Our 

process for determining adequacy is 

explained at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5), and in a May 14, 1999 memo from 

Gay MacGregor, Director, Regional and 

State Programs Division, Office of 

Mobile Sources, entitled, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision.’’

For more details about the 

applicability of submitted and approved 

budgets, see 61 FR 36117 (July 9, 1996) 

and 62 FR 43783 (August 15, 1997). As 

explained below, today’s proposal is not 

intended to modify the generally 

applicable rules regarding when 

submitted budgets become effective for 

the purposes of transportation 

conformity. Rather, today’s proposal 

sets forth a means to accommodate the 

State’s request to allow for the prompt 

use of new budgets in California within 

the bounds of existing regulatory and 

statutory requirements. 

II. What Are We Proposing Today? 

Today, as authorized in CAA sections 

110(k) and 301(a), we are proposing to 

limit the duration of our prior approvals 

of existing budgets associated with the 

SIPs for the areas listed above. Under 

this proposed modification, the existing 

budgets will continue to be approved 

but will apply for transportation 

conformity purposes only until new 

budgets have been submitted and we 

have found the new budgets to be 

adequate. 

A. What Modification to Our Approvals 

of the Existing Budgets Has the State 

Requested? 

The California SIPs identified in 

Table 1 were developed and adopted in 

the period 1994 through 1996. In the 

years since the development of these 

plans, the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has prepared draft 

revisions to the mobile source 

component of the emissions inventories, 

including a major draft revision to the 

model used to calculate exhaust and 

evaporative emissions from motor 

vehicles. This California-specific model 

is known as EMFAC. CARB is now 

making final refinements to this 

completely new version of EMFAC. 

The version of the State’s motor 

vehicle emissions model available for 

development of the Table 1 SIPs was 

EMFAC 7F for those SIPs adopted 

before 1996. The most recent version of 

EMFAC applicable to these areas is 7G, 

which was adopted by CARB in 1996 

and which was used in California SIPs 

adopted after 1995.1

On June 14, 2002, CARB submitted a 

letter indicating the State’s intention to 

submit comprehensive revisions to the 

progress, attainment,and maintenance 

SIPs and the budgets for the areas listed 

in Table 1 to reflect, among other new 

information, the State’s revised motor 

vehicle emissions factors and the 

updated information on vehicle fleet, 

age distribution, and activity levels 

(letter from Michael P. Kenny, CARB, to 

Wayne Nastri, EPA). The State notes 

that these plan revisions will benefit air 

quality and strengthen the SIPs by 

incorporating: new federally enforceable 

commitments and control measures; 

new and updated data that reflect the 

various emission control rules adopted 

since the old SIPs were developed; 

recent vehicle test data for cars and 

trucks to better represent real-world 

emissions; and updated vehicle 

registration data and activity data. 

CARB anticipates that by January 

2003 the new version of EMFAC will be 

submitted to us for approval for use in 

SIPs and conformity analyses statewide. 

In an April 26, 2002, letter to EPA, the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), and the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), CARB included a 

schedule according to which the State 

expects to submit revised plans and new 

budgets based on the new EMFAC 

model and updated information.2 The 

schedule shows that the State expects to 

submit SIPs for almost all of the areas 

listed in Table 1 by April 2003.

In the June 14, 2002 letter, CARB 

discusses the benefits of promptly 

replacing the existing budgets with the 

new budgets, noting the advantages of 

basing transportation conformity 

determinations on updated and 

enhanced plans and budgets that use the 

most current and accurate motor vehicle 

emissions data. CARB expresses 

concern that these benefits will not be 

realized for well over a year after the 

new plans and budgets are submitted, if 

our prior SIP approvals are not modified 

to allow for the replacement of the 

existing budgets upon our adequacy 

determination with respect to the new 

budgets. 

As described above in Section I.D., 

new budgets associated with progress, 

attainment, and maintenance plans 

generally may not replace existing 

budgets for conformity purposes until 

we have taken final action to approve 

the new budgets and the new plans to 

which they correspond.3 This SIP 

approval process may take as much as 

18 months from submittal of the plans.4

During this period of time, the 

conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects would have to 

continue to be determined based on the 

existing budgets, which will 

increasingly diverge from the progress, 

attainment, and maintenance needs of 

the areas.

The adequacy process may be 

completed in far less time than would 

be required for full SIP and budget 

approval. Indeed, under the May 14, 

1999, conformity guidance, EPA has 

established an expedited adequacy 

process, designed to be completed no 

more than 90 days from budget 

submittal. 

Because CARB knows that existing 

SIPs are based on older planning data 

and models, CARB asks EPA to modify 

the approval of the existing budgets in 

the SIPs listed in Table 1 so that the 

approval of these budgets lasts only 

until EPA finds adequate new budgets 

based on updated planning data and 

models. 

B. How Are We Proposing to Modify Our 

Approval of the Budgets? 

In today’s notice, we are proposing to 

limit our approval of existing budgets 

such that the approved motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the SIPs listed in 

Table 1 will continue to be approved 

but will apply for transportation 

conformity purposes only until new 

budgets based on updated planning data 

and models have been submitted and 

we have found them to be adequate for 

conformity purposes. 

In other words, when the State 

submits revised SIPs containing new

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 46621

budgets using the new version of 

EMFAC and the updated information, as 

they have indicated they intend to do, 

those new budgets will apply for 

conformity purposes if and when we 

find the budgets to be adequate for 

conformity purposes and our adequacy 

finding is effective. The new budgets 

would then replace the existing budgets 

in the approved SIPs, provided that (as 

we expect) the new budgets are 

submitted as a revision to the progress, 

attainment, or maintenance SIPs and are 

established for the same years as those 

in the approved SIPs. 

We believe the new budgets should 

apply as soon as we find them adequate 

rather than delaying applicability of the 

new budgets until we have approved the 

revised SIPs. This is because we know 

now that once we have confirmed that 

the new budgets are adequate, they will 

be more appropriate than the existing 

budgets for conformity purposes 

because the new budgets will be based 

on updated information. 

If we do not modify our approval of 

the existing budgets, California will 

revise their plans and budgets as they 

have committed, but they will not be 

able to start using them quickly for 

conformity purposes. In contrast, 

according to today’s proposal, the 

revised budgets could be used for 

conformity after we have completed our 

adequacy review process, which we 

have committed to complete within 90 

days after revisions are submitted, 

provided they are adequate. If we do not 

find the new budgets adequate, the 

existing budgets would continue to 

apply. In the event that we disapprove 

the plans and the new budgets after 

finding the new budgets adequate, we 

would act to reapprove the original 

budgets so that they will again apply, 

unless we have issued a protective 

finding with respect to disapproval of 

the new budgets. Conformity 

determinations of a transportation plan 

or TIP made based on the adequate 

budget will remain valid. 

This notice does not propose any 

change to the transportation conformity 

rule or to the way it is normally 

implemented with respect to other 

submitted and approved SIPs. 

We are proposing only one change to 

our prior approvals of the California 

SIPs listed in Table 1: we propose to 

limit our approval of the budgets in 

those plans so that they will no longer 

apply once we find adequate new 

budgets for the same Clean Air Act 

requirement and year. In all other 

respects, the Table 1 SIPs will remain 

federally approved and enforceable 

unless and until we finalize approval of 

revised plans, and our limitations apply 

only to the extent that any new plans 

explicitly supersede the approved SIPs. 

Lastly, we do not view California’s 

request to limit the duration of the 

approval of the existing budgets and 

have the new budgets apply after they 

are found adequate to be a SIP revision 

itself but rather a request that we modify 

our approvals of previously submitted 

and approved budgets.

III. Request for Public Comment 

We are soliciting public comment on 

all aspects of this proposal. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. To comment on 

today’s proposal, you should submit 

comments by mail or in person to the 

ADDRESSES section listed in the front of 

this document. Your comments must be 

received by August 15, 2002, to be 

considered in the final action taken by 

EPA. 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed 

action modifies certain previous SIP 

approval actions and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed 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 proposes to 

modify certain previous SIP approval 

actions 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 

(Public Law 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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). This action merely 

proposes to modify certain previous SIP 

approval actions, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

because it is not economically 

significant. 

Because 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 in the 

context of EPA’s review of SIP 

submissions, the requirements also do 

not apply in the context of EPA’s 

modification of its previous approvals of 

such SIP submissions. This proposed 

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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: July 3, 2002. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 02–17875 Filed 7–15–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[FRL–7241–3] 

Georgia: Final Authorization of State 

Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Georgia has applied to EPA 

for Final authorization of the changes to 

its hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to Georgia. In the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is authorizing the changes 

by an immediate final rule. EPA did not 

make a proposal prior to the immediate