Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31093

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through

1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33

CFR 1.05–1(g).

2. From 12 p.m. until 4 p.m. on June

23, 2000 temporarily add § 110.157(e) to

read as follows:

§ 110.157 Delaware Bay and River.

* * * * *

(e) Not withstanding the above, the

following temporary regulations will be

in effect from 12 p.m. through 4 p.m. on

June 23, 2000 for Tall Ships Delaware:

Anchorage 6 will be closed to all vessels

except Tall Ships Delaware vessels.

‘‘Tall Ships Delaware vessels’’ includes

all vessels participating in Tall Ships

Delaware under the auspices of the

Marine Event Permit submitted for the

Port of Wilmington, Delaware, and

approved by the Commander, Fifth

Coast Guard District.

PART 165—[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50

U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–

6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. Section 165.100

is also issued under authority of Sec. 311,

Pub. L. 105–383.

4. Add temporary § 165.T05–008 to

read as follows:

§ 165.T05–008 Safety Zone; Tall Ships

Delaware, Delaware River, Wilmington, DE.

(a) Definitions: 

(1) Captain of the Port means the

Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard

Marine Safety Office/Group

Philadelphia or any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer

who has been authorized by the Captain

of the Port to act on his behalf.

(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander is

a commissioned, warrant, or petty

officer of the Coast Guard who has been

designated by the Commanding Officer,

Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group

Philadelphia.

(3) Tall Ships Delaware Vessels

includes all vessels participating in the

Tall Ships Delaware under the auspices

of the Marine Event Permit submitted

for the Port of Wilmington, Delaware,

and approved by Commander, Fifth

Coast Guard District.

(b) Location. The following area is a

moving safety zone: All waters from 500

yards forward of the lead Tall Ships

Delaware vessel to 100 yards aft of the

last Tall Ships Delaware vessel, and

extending 50 yards outboard of each

Tall Ships Delaware vessel participating

in the Parade of Sail. This safety zone

will move with the Parade of Sail as it

transits the Delaware River from the

mouth of the Christina River outbound

to New Castle, Delaware, returns to the

mouth of the Christina River, and as

each Tall Ships Delaware vessel moors

in Wilmington, Delaware.

(c) Regulations.

(1) All persons are required to comply

with the general regulations governing

safety zones in § 165.23 of this part.

(2) No person or vessel may enter or

navigate within this safety zone unless

authorized to do so by the Coast Guard

Patrol Commander. Any person or

vessel authorized to enter the safety

zone must operate in strict conformance

with any directions given by the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander and leave the

safety zone immediately if the Coast

Guard Patrol Commander so orders.

(3) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing

this section can be contacted on VHF

Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.

The Captain of the Port can be contacted

at telephone number (215) 271–4940.

(4) The Coast Guard Patrol

Commander will notify the public of

changes in the status of this safety zone

by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on

VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22

(157.1 MHZ).

(d) Effective dates: These regulations

are effective from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. on

June 23, 2000.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

Thomas E. Bernard,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting

Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–12283 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 240–0237a; FRL–6602–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan,

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act), we are approving a local rule that

concerns definitions and rescinding one

rule that addresses standard conditions.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 17,

2000 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by June 15,

2000. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

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 rule revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud

Court, Monterey, CA 93940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rules?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

C. Public Comment and Final Action

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules Submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules we are

approving with the dates that they were

adopted by the local air agencies and

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB).

31094 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

MBUAPCD .............. 101 Definitions .......................................................................................................... 36508 36578

MBUAPCD .............. 102 Standard Conditions (Rescission) ...................................................................... 36508 36578

On March 7, 2000, these rule

submittals were found to meet the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix V, which must be met before

formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

There are previous versions of Rules

101 and 102 in the SIP. We approved a

version of Rules 101 and 102 into the

SIP on February 6, 1998 and July 13,

1987, respectively. The MBUAPCD

adopted revisions to the SIP-approved

version of Rules 101 and 102 on

December 15, 1999 and CARB submitted

them to us on February 23, 2000.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Revisions?

Rule 101 revises Section 2.10 to add

methyl acetate as an exempt compound

to be consistent with the federal

definition of volatile organic

compounds and to correct the scientific

names for HFC–245ca, HFC–245eb, and

HFC–245fa.

Rule 102 is being rescinded because it

is included in Rule 101 as Section 2.29.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

These rules describe administrative

provisions and definitions that support

emission controls found in other local

agency requirements. In combination

with the other requirements, these rules

must be enforceable (see section 110(a)

of the Act) and must not relax existing

requirements (see sections 110(l) and

193). EPA policy that we used to define

specific enforceability requirements

includes, ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and

Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D

of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent

with the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations. The TSD has more

information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the Act, EPA is fully approving the

submitted rule revisions because we

believe they fulfill all relevant

requirements. We do not think anyone

will object to this, so we are finalizing

the approval without proposing it in

advance. However, in the Proposed

Rules section of this Federal Register,

we are simultaneously proposing

approval of the same submitted rule

revisions. If we receive adverse

comments by June 15, 2000, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that the direct final approval will not

take effect and we will address the

comments in a subsequent final action

based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on July 17, 2000.

This will incorporate these rules into

the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules Submitted?

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires

states to submit regulations that control

volatile organic compounds, oxides of

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other

air pollutants which harm human health

and the environment. These rules were

developed as part of the local agency’s

program to control these pollutants.

Table 2 lists some of the national

milestones leading to the submittal of

these rules.

TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES

Date Event

March 3, 1978 .................... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964;

40 CFR 81.305.

May 26, 1988 ..................... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA’s SIP-Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act.

November 15, 1990 ............ Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31095

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

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.

31096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 July 17, 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, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: April 18, 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)(275) and (c)(276)

to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(275) Reserved.

(276) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on February 23, 2000, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rules 101 and 102, adopted on

December 15, 1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–11998 Filed 5–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–6606–5]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’

or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is granting a

petition submitted by General Motors

Corporation, Lansing Car Assembly—

Body Plant (GM) in Lansing, Michigan,

to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) certain solid

wastes generated by its wastewater

treatment plant (WWTP) from the lists

of hazardous wastes contained in

subpart D of part 261.

After careful analysis, the EPA has

concluded that the petitioned waste is

not hazardous waste when disposed of

in a Subtitle D landfill. This exclusion

applies to wastewater treatment sludge

generated at GM’s Lansing, Michigan

facility. Accordingly, this final rule

excludes the petitioned waste from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill

but imposes testing conditions to ensure

that future-generated wastes remain

qualified for delisting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 16, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory

docket for this proposed rule is located

at the U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, and is

available for viewing from 8:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call Peter

Ramanauskas at (312) 886–7890 for

appointments. The public may copy

material from the regulatory docket at

$0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

document, contact Peter Ramanauskas

at the address above or at (312) 886–

7890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To Be

Delisted?

II. GM’s Petition to Delist Wastewater

Treatment Sludge

A. What Waste Did GM Petition EPA to

Delist?

B. What Information Must the Generator

Supply?

C. What Information Did GM Submit to

Support This Petition?

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Final Rule

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing and

Why?

B. What Are the Terms of This Exclusion?

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

D. How Does This Action Affect the States?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

B. Comments and Responses From EPA

V. Regulatory Impact

VI. Congressional Review Act

VII. Executive Order 12875

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting petition is a request from

a generator to exclude waste from the

list of hazardous wastes under RCRA

regulations. In a delisting petition, the

petitioner must show that waste

generated at a particular facility does

not meet any of the criteria for which

EPA listed the waste as set forth in 40

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

§ 261.11 and the background document

for the waste. In addition, a petitioner

must demonstrate that the waste does

not exhibit any of the hazardous waste

characteristics (that is, ignitability,

reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and

must present sufficient information for

us to decide whether factors other than

those for which the waste was listed

warrant retaining it as a hazardous

waste.

Generators remain obligated under

RCRA to confirm that their waste

remains nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics even if

EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the wastes.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To

Be Delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition the EPA to

remove their wastes from hazardous

waste control by excluding them from

the lists of hazardous wastes contained

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition

the Administrator to modify or revoke

any provision of parts 260 through 266,

268, and 273 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Section 260.22

provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis

from the hazardous waste lists.