31480 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

regulations that require unfunded

mandates. An unfunded mandate is a

regulation that requires a State, local, or

tribal government or the private sector

to incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This rule will

not impose an unfunded mandate.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Temporary Final Regulation

For the reasons discussed 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, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. From 12:01 a.m. on June 16, 2000,

until 11:59 p.m. on July 10, 2000,

§ 165.T17–003 is temporarily added to

read as follows:

§ 165.T17–003 Safety Zone; Port Graham,

Cook Inlet, Alaska.

(a) Description. The following area is

a Safety Zone: All navigable waters

within a 250-yard radius of the Derrick

Barge LOS ANGELES, located in Port

Graham, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

(b) Effective Dates. This section is

effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 16,

2000, until 11:59 p.m. on July 10, 2000.

(c) Regulations.

(1) The Captain of the Port means the

Captain of the Port, Western Alaska. The

Captain of the Port may authorize or

designate any Coast Guard

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer

to act on his behalf as his representative.

(2) The general regulations governing

safety zones contained in Title 33 Code

of Federal Regulations, part 165.23

apply. No person or vessel may enter,

transit through, anchor or remain in this

safety zone, with the exception of

attending vessels, without first

obtaining permission from the Captain

of the Port, Western Alaska, or his

representative. The Captain of the Port

or his representative may be contacted

in the vicinity of the SWAN via marine

VHF channel 16. The Captain of the

Port’s representative can also be

contacted by telephone at (907) 271–

6700.

Dated: April 14, 2000.

W. J. Hutmacher,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the

Port, Western Alaska.

[FR Doc. 00–12461 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 096–1096b; FRL–6701–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule, we (EPA) are

announcing approval of a revision to

Missouri’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for air pollution control. This

action approves the inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program which is

applicable to the St. Louis

nonattainment area as a revision to the

SIP. The state program requires the

implementation of a motor vehicle I/M

program containing many of the features

of an enhanced I/M program in

Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles

counties and St. Louis City. We

proposed approval of this program in

the Federal Register on February 17,

2000. This final action is being

published to meet our statutory

obligation under the Clean Air Act

(CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the state

submittal is available at the following

address for inspection during normal

business hours: EPA, Region 7, Air

Planning and Development Branch, 901

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leland Daniels at (913) 551–7651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section provides additional information

by addressing the following questions:

What Is a SIP?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution regulations and control

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards that we established. These

ambient standards are established under

section 109 of the CAA, and they

currently address six criteria pollutants.

These pollutants are: carbon monoxide,

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,

particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

Each state must submit these regulations

and control strategies to us for approval

and incorporation into the Federally

enforceable SIP. Each Federally

approved SIP protects air quality

primarily by addressing air pollution at

its point of origin. These SIPs can be

extensive, containing state regulations

or other enforceable documents and

supporting information such as

emission inventories, monitoring

networks, and modeling

demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the Federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and control

strategies consistent with state and

Federal requirements. This process

generally includes a public notice,

public hearing, public comment period,

and a formal adoption by a stateauthorized rulemaking body.

Once a state rule, regulation, or

control strategy is adopted, the state

submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding our proposed action on the

state submission. If adverse comments

are received, we must address them

prior to taking any final action.

All state regulations and supporting

information that we approve under

section 110 of the CAA are incorporated

into the Federally approved SIP. The

record of such SIP approvals is

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

entitled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations which are approved are not

reproduced in their entirety in the CFR

but are ‘‘incorporated by reference,’’

which means that EPA has approved a

given state regulation with a specific

effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State

Regulation Mean?

Enforcement of the state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

the Federally approved SIP is primarily

a state responsibility. However, after the

regulation is Federally approved, we are

authorized to take an enforcement

action to return a violator to

compliance. Citizens are also offered

legal recourse to address violations as

described in section 304 the CAA.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31481

What Is Being Addressed in This

Document?

In a letter of November 10, 1999 to

Dennis Grams, Regional Administrator,

Stephen Mahfood, Director, Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

(MDNR), submitted a revised I/M

program as an amendment to the SIP.

The submittal included the SIP revision

and a number of attachments including

the adopted state statute and regulation,

the signed I/M contract, a memorandum

of understanding with the Missouri

Highway Patrol, an interagency

agreement with the Missouri

Department of Revenue (MDOR), the I/

M budget, modeling input and output

files, sample calculations, a table

showing the number of vehicles in the

I/M program, procedures and

specifications, a list of zip codes for the

I/M program, the public education

program, and an example of the MDOR

contract with fee offices. The Missouri

rule being approved is 10 CSR 10–5.380,

Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection,

with a state effective date of December

30, 1999.

On February 17, 2000 we proposed to

approve this SIP revision. The proposal

stated that the state I/M regulations

established pass/fail exhaust standards

for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,

carbon dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen.

Missouri neither passes nor fails

vehicles based on carbon dioxide

readings, nor do we require states to

base compliance on carbon dioxide

measurements, anywhere. Carbon

dioxide is measured but only as a

quality control process.

The public comment period was open

through March 20, 2000. No comments

were received. In the February 17, 2000,

proposal, we noted that comments had

been received on a prior proposal (64 FR

9460 on February 26, 1999) on a

previous submission of the I/M

program. The comments asserted

deficiencies in the previous state

submission. We also noted that the

submission on which the February 17

proposal was based contained

substantial revisions to the prior

submittal, and encouraged comments

relevant to the revised submittal. No

comments were forthcoming, and we

have determined that the prior

comments are not relevant to the state’s

November 1999 submittal and our

February 17, 2000 proposal.

On April 5, 2000 MDNR began

implementation of the I/M program in

the St. Louis nonattainment area.

This Federal Register notice takes

final action to fully approve the I/M

program, including the state’s I/M rule,

as it relates to the Missouri portion of

the St. Louis nonattainment area.

Have the Requirements for Approval of

a SIP Revision Been Met?

The state submittal has met the public

notice requirements for SIP submissions

in accordance with 40 CFR section

51.102. The submittal also satisfied the

completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. In addition, as explained

above and in more detail in our

proposal published February 17, 2000,

the revision meets the substantive SIP

requirements of the CAA, including

section 110, Part D of Title I, and

implementing regulations in 40 CFR

part 51, subpart S (the ‘‘I/M rule’’). In

the February 17 proposal, we discussed

in detail how the state’s submittal meets

each of the relevant requirements of the

I/M rule and EPA’s rationale for

approval. The reader is referred to that

discussion for the rationale for this final

action.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

Section 182(b) of the Act requires

states with moderate ozone

nonattainment areas to implement a

‘‘basic’’ I/M program. The state’s plan

relies on the I/M program and other

specific control measures to achieve the

necessary emission reductions so that

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards are met. The I/M rule

strengthens the SIP by obtaining needed

emission reductions. Today’s final

action incorporates the St. Louis I/M

program into the SIP.

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 (Public Law 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

CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. section 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 United States Senate,

the United States House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

31482 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

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 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: May 8, 2000.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region 7.

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 AA—Missouri

2. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising the entry for

10–5.380, under Chapter 5, to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Explanation

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

*******

Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area

*******

10–5.380 ................................. Motor vehicle emissions inspection.12/30/99 ......................... [insert FR cite] May 18,

2000.

*******

3. In § 52.1320 the table in paragraph

(e) is amended by adding an entry at the

end of the table in the Nonregulatory

SIP Provisions for the inspection/

maintenance program, to read as

follows:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATIONS SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP

Provision

Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Comments

*******

Implementation plan for the

Missouri inspection/.

maintenance program .......

St. Louis ............................ 11/12/99 ............................ [insert FR cite] May 18,

2000.

[FR Doc. 00–12395 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 7 Tracking No. MO 102–1102; FRL–

6701–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a nitrogen oxides (NOX)

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rule which is applicable to the

St. Louis, Missouri, ozone

nonattainment area. This rule reduces

NOX emissions in the St. Louis area by

requiring major sources to install or

comply with RACT as required by the

Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

are available at the following address for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Johnson at (913) 551–7975.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

This section provides additional

information by addressing the following

questions:

What is a SIP?

What is the Federal approval process for a

SIP?