Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 32035

Urethane, Vinyl, Waste treatment and

disposal, Wool, Zinc.

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

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 QQ—South Dakota

2. Section 52.2170 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(18) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(18) On May 2, 1997 and on May 6,

1999, the designee of the Governor of

South Dakota submitted revisions to the

new source performance standards in

subchapter 74:36:07 of the

Administrative Rules of South Dakota

(ARSD).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revisions to the Administrative

Rules of South Dakota, Air Pollution

Control Program, Chapter 74:36:07—

New Source Performance Standards,

subsections 74:36:07:01 through

74:36:07:10, 74:36:07:12 through

74:36:07:28, 74:36:07:31 through

74:36:07:33, and 74:36:07:43, effective

December 29, 1996.

(B) Revisions to the Administrative

Rules of South Dakota, Air Pollution

Control Program, Chapter 74:36:07—

New Source Performance Standards,

subsections 74:36:07:06.02,

74:36:07:07.01, 74:36:07:11, and

74:36:07:43, effective April 4, 1999.

* * * * *

PART 60—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7601.

Subpart A—General Provisions

2. Section 60.4 is amended by:

a. Revising the address listed for the

State of South Dakota in paragraph

(b)(QQ); and

b. In the table in paragraph (c) entitled

‘‘Delegation Status of New Source

Performance Standards [(NSPS) for

Region VIII]’’ by revising the entries for

‘‘Eb—Large Municipal Waste

Combustors,’’ ‘‘Ec—Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incinerators,’’ ‘‘UUU—

Calciners and Dryers in Mineral

Industries,’’ and ‘‘WWW—Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills’; and removing

the existing entry for ‘‘RRR—VOC

Emissions from Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry

(SOCMI) Reactor Process’’and adding a

new entry for ‘‘RRR—VOC Emissions

from Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

Reactor Processes’’ to read as follows:

§ 60.4 Address.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(QQ) State of South Dakota, Air

Quality Program, Department of

Environment and Natural Resources, Joe

Foss Building, 523 East Capitol, Pierre,

SD 57501–3181.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

DELEGATION STATUS OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

[(NSPS) for Region VIII]

Subpart CO MT 1 ND SD 1 UT 1 WY

*****

Eb—Large Municipal Waste Combustors ................................................ ................ ................ ................ (*) ................ (*)

Ec—Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators ................................ ................ ................ (*) (*) ................ ................

*****

RRR—VOC Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI) Reactor Processes .................................................. (*) ................ (*) (*) (*) (*)

*****

UUU—Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries ................................... (*) ................ (*) (*) (*) (*)

******

WWW—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills .................................................. ................ ................ (*) (*) (*) (*)

(*) Indicates approval of State regulation.

1 Indicates approval of New Source Performance Standards as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

[FR Doc. 00–12522 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL–6703–3]

RIN 2060–AJ12

Extension of Operating Permits

Program, Interim Approval Expiration

Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the

operating permits regulations of EPA.

Those regulations were originally

promulgated on July 21, 1992. These

amendments will extend up to

December 1, 2001 all operating permits

program interim approvals. This action

will allow the time needed for

permitting authorities to correct all

remaining interim approval deficiencies

and obtain full approval for their

operating permits programs.

DATES: The regulatory amendments

announced herein take effect on May 31,

2000. For those programs whose interim

32036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

approval expiration dates are amended

by this action, interim approval will

expire on December 1, 2001. Any

program revisions necessary for a

program to obtain full approval must be

submitted to EPA not later than June 1,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Supporting material

used in developing the proposal and

final regulatory revisions is contained in

Docket Number A–93–50. This docket is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday. The

address of the EPA air docket is: Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number

A–93–50, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460. The Docket is

located in Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall (ground floor). The telephone

number for the EPA air docket is (202)

260–7548. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Powell, Mail Drop 12, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711 (telephone 919–541–

5331, e-mail: powell.roger@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 14, 2000, EPA published in the

Federal Register a direct final

rulemaking which would have extended

until June 1, 2002, expiration dates for

all State and local operating permits

programs that have interim approvals

(65 FR 7290) granted by EPA under its

regulations at 40 CFR part 70 (part 70).

A proposal to that effect was published

the same day (65 FR 7333). In the

rulemaking, EPA stated that if relevant

adverse comments were received by the

comment deadline specified in that

action, March 15, 2000, EPA would

publish a document informing the

public that the rule would not take

effect and that comments would be

addressed in any final rule based on the

proposed rule.

The EPA did receive an adverse

comment on the direct final rulemaking

within the comment deadline.

Accordingly, EPA published a Federal

Register document on March 29, 2000

withdrawing the rulemaking (65 FR

16523). This rulemaking represents the

final rule based on the February 14,

2000 proposal, to which the adverse

comment also applied. The comments

on the proposal are addressed herein.

I. Background

If an operating permits program

administered by a State or local

permitting authority under title V of the

Clean Air Act (Act) does not fully meet,

but does ‘‘substantially [meet],’’ the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

that program ‘‘interim approval.’’

Permits granted under an interim

approval are fully effective and expire at

the end of their fixed term, unless

renewed under a part 70 program. See

40 CFR 70.4(d)(2). Many State and local

permitting programs have been granted

interim approval, with most final

interim approval actions having

occurred in 1995 and 1996. See 40 CFR

part 70, Appendix A. To obtain full

approval, a permitting authority must

submit to EPA program revisions to

correct all deficiencies that caused the

operating permits program to receive

interim approval. Such submittal must

be made no later than 6 months prior to

the expiration of the interim approval.

See 40 CFR 70.4(f)(2).

On August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44460)

and August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45530), EPA

proposed revisions to its part 70

operating permits program regulations.

Primarily, the proposals addressed

changes to the system for revising

permits, but a number of other proposed

changes were also included. The

preamble to the August 31, 1995

proposal noted the concern of many

permitting authorities over having to

revise their operating permits programs

twice; once to correct interim approval

deficiencies, and again to address the

revisions to part 70. In the August 1995

preamble, the Agency proposed that

States with interim approval ‘‘* * *

should be allowed to delay the

submittal of any program revisions to

address program deficiencies previously

listed in their notice of interim approval

until the deadline to submit other

changes required by the proposed

revisions to part 70’’ (60 FR 45552).

On October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56368),

EPA amended 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) to

permit the Administrator to grant

extensions to interim approval

expiration dates to allow permitting

authorities the opportunity to combine

program revisions directed at the

correction of interim approval

deficiencies as well as the adoption of

the part 70 revisions. In this rulemaking,

all interim approvals granted prior to

the date of issuance of a memorandum

announcing EPA’s position on this issue

(memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman

to Regional Division Directors,

‘‘Extension of Interim Approvals of

Operating Permits Programs,’’ June 13,

1996) were granted 10 month extensions

from their different respective

expiration dates.

The EPA then extended interim

approval expiration dates for certain

State and local permitting programs a

second time, on August 29, 1997 (62 FR

45732). On July 27, 1998, EPA

published a direct final rulemaking

extending interim approval expiration

dates a third time, this time covering all

interim approved programs, until June

1, 2000. In each of these instances,

delays in the expected promulgation of

the final part 70 revisions past the

previous interim approval expiration

dates led EPA to grant the further

extensions of the expiration deadlines.

The Agency intended these extensions

to provide State and local agencies time

to apply to combine their program

revisions and to allow EPA to take

action on those requests.

Following discussions with various

stakeholders and further deliberations

concerning the revisions to the part 70

regulations, EPA is in the process of

preparing a supplemental proposal to

take comment on a series of possible

part 70 revisions that arose out of those

discussions and deliberations. The

Agency anticipates publishing this

supplemental proposal in the Federal

Register in late summer or early fall of

2000. The EPA now projects

promulgation of the entire final package

of part 70 revisions for late 2001.

To prevent interim approvals from

expiring on June 1, 2000, and to enable

permitting authorities to defer

correction of interim approval

deficiencies until their adoption of the

expected part 70 revisions, EPA

published a direct final rule on February

14, 2000 to extend all interim approval

expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65

FR 7290). Simultaneously, EPA

published an accompanying proposal,

also to extend interim approval

expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65

FR 7333).

II. Comments Received on the Proposal

The comment period for the February

14, 2000 proposal expired on March 15,

2000. During the comment period, EPA

received two comment letters

addressing that proposal.

The first commenter apparently

misunderstood the mechanisms for

allowing permitting authorities to

combine program revisions. The

comment addressed the fact that an

interim approval expiration date of June

1, 2002 did not allow enough time to

prepare program changes to address the

expected revisions to part 70, which

was projected for promulgation in late

2001.

The preamble of the direct final

rulemaking on February 14, 2000

explained that after part 70 was revised,

another interim approval expiration

date extension of either 18 months or 2

years from the date of rulemaking

revising part 70 would be available to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 32037

allow time for preparation of the

combined program revisions. The

Agency intended the interim approval

expiration date extension until June 1,

2002 to be a measure to prevent interim

approvals from expiring on June 1,

2000, before the part 70 revisions were

promulgated. The commenter’s concern,

therefore, would have been addressed

by the provisions explained in the

February 2000 direct final rulemaking.

Prior extensions and the June 13, 1996

memorandum referenced above have

been predicated upon the understanding

that permitting authorities wishing to

combine program revisions to meet the

revised part 70 with program revisions

to correct remaining interim approval

deficiencies, were to request, within 30

days of promulgation of the part 70

revisions, an additional 18 month or 2

year extension of their interim approval

deadline (65 FR 7291–7292).

Accordingly, neither the direct final rule

nor the proposal was intended to grant

across-the-board extensions to interim

approval deadlines sufficiently past the

expected promulgation date of the part

70 revisions to allow the full cycle of

State and local program revisions,

submissions, and EPA approvals to

occur.

The second commenter asserted that

EPA’s proposed action is contrary to the

express terms of the Act and must be

withdrawn. The commenter referred to

Section 502(g) of the Act, which

provides that ‘‘[a]n interim approval

under [Section 502(g)] shall expire on a

date set by the Administrator not later

than 2 years after such approval, and

may not be renewed.’’

This commenter further argued that

the existing 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) does not

justify an extension of interim approval

deadlines until June 1, 2002. The

commenter stated that to the extent that

§ 70.4(d)(2) allowed an extension of

interim approvals by up to 10 months

on an individual basis, EPA had already

granted this 10-month extension in the

October 31, 1996 rulemaking and that,

at any rate, the proposed extension to

June 1, 2002 was longer than 10 months.

This commenter also asserted that to

the extent § 70.4(d)(2) allowed longer

interim approval periods for States to

combine program changes, this

provision did not justify the proposed

extension to June 1, 2002 because

§ 70.4(d)(2) contemplated such

extensions only after the promulgation

of part 70 revisions, which has not

occurred. Moreover, the commenter

noted that this provision authorized

additional time ‘‘only once per State’’

and that EPA had already granted

multiple extensions in the past.

Finally, the commenter argued that

the continuing extension of interim

approvals does not represent sound

policy. That commenter stated that the

deficiencies in State programs that

warranted EPA granting interim, rather

than full, approval often involved

important substantive issues. Moreover,

the commenter argued that no real

hardship would be suffered by States

required to undertake more than one

program revision, noting that States

regularly revise their regulations and

statutes as part of the State

implementation plan process. Finally,

the commenter argued that any pursuit

of administrative convenience could not

override statutory requirements and the

purpose of the permit program.

In consideration of these comments,

and taking into account the further

delays in promulgating the revisions to

part 70 and the need for a supplemental

part 70 proposal, EPA is abandoning the

concept of allowing program revisions

to correct interim approval deficiencies

to be combined with program revisions

necessary to conform to the provisions

of expected future revisions to part 70.

The Agency concludes that it is no

longer appropriate to continue

extending interim approval expiration

dates in furtherance of this combination

approach.

Notwithstanding the repeated

extensions of interim approvals, EPA

has, in the preambles to those previous

extensions, consistently encouraged

permitting authorities to correct their

remaining interim approval deficiencies

and not await promulgation of the part

70 revisions. Indeed, a number of State

and local permitting authorities have

corrected their deficiencies and have

either received full approval or

submitted corrections to EPA to gain

full approval. Most permitting

authorities with interim approved

programs, however, have not corrected

all remaining deficiencies.

The EPA also is aware of programs

that have undertaken rulemakings

during their interim approval period to

correct some but not all outstanding

deficiencies, with some deficiencies

remaining that are unrelated to the

expected part 70 revisions. Moreover,

further inquiry has demonstrated that

the significant majority of remaining

interim approval deficiencies are

unrelated to the issues addressed by the

revisions proposed to part 70, with most

deficiencies not being altered or affected

by expected revisions to part 70.

Accordingly, EPA believes it is

appropriate to require correction of all

interim approval deficiencies without

regard to the possible future

promulgation of the part 70 revisions.

At the same time, for State and local

programs to have the opportunity to

correct all interim approval deficiencies,

and to provide EPA the opportunity to

act on these submittals, this rulemaking

extends the interim approval expiration

deadline until December 1, 2001. Under

part 70, State and local permitting

authorities must submit corrections of

all remaining interim approval

deficiencies by no later than 6 months

prior to this deadline, namely by no

later than June 1, 2001, for EPA to treat

these submissions as timely.

The Agency believes it is necessary to

extend interim approval expiration

deadlines until December 1, 2001 both

to ensure that permitting authorities

have the opportunity to correct

remaining deficiencies, and to ensure

that title V permit programs continue to

be implemented effectively by State and

local permitting authorities. The Agency

believes that State and local agencies are

well equipped to continue effective

administration and enforcement of

operating permits programs, and to

ensure the issuance of permits designed

to serve the important compliance

benefits of the Act.

In the absence of the extension

granted in this rulemaking, interim

approved programs would expire on

June 1, 2000, automatically placing into

effect the part 71 Federal operating

permits program for 88 State and local

permitting authorities. This outcome

would only hinder the effort to issue

operating permits and bring about the

important benefits of permits, since

sources without already issued part 70

permits in those jurisdictions newly

subject to the part 71 Federal operating

permits program would need to re-apply

for part 71 permits within 1 year after

the June 1, 2000 effective date.

Consequently, those sources would not

be issued operating permits until well

after the time they would have been

under a preserved part 70 program.

Finally, EPA is well aware that many

permitting authorities with interim

approved programs have not undertaken

program revisions to correct their

remaining deficiencies under the

expectation that an extension past the

June 1, 2000 deadline would be granted

to allow the opportunity to combine

their program revisions as previously

discussed. Accordingly, today’s action

prevents the disruption that would

occur from imposing the Federal

permitting program on affected State

and local agencies on relatively short

notice. At the same time, EPA is hereby

providing clear notice that to avoid

having their programs expire and be

replaced by the Federal permitting

program, permitting authorities must

32038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

correct all remaining deficiencies and

submit those corrections by the

deadlines discussed above, with further

notice that no additional extensions of

interim approval deadlines will be

granted. The EPA believes that all

permitting authorities with currently

identified interim approval deficiencies

will be able to make any necessary

revisions to their rules or statutes, and

to submit any needed corrections, by no

later than June 1, 2002.

III. Effective Date

Section 553(d) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.A., 551–59, 701–

06) requires that EPA allow at least 30

days from the publication of a

substantive rule before it becomes

effective unless EPA determines there is

good cause for a shorter deadline. The

primary purpose of the delayed effective

date is to give citizens a reasonable time

to prepare to comply with, or take other

action regarding, a rule. The Agency has

determined that good cause exists for

making this rulemaking effective on

May 31, 2000 since delaying the

effective date of the rulemaking would

be impracticable and contrary to the

public interest, and lead to serious

dislocation in government programs.

The compelling argument for making

this rulemaking effective on May 31,

2000 is that it must take effect before

June 1, 2000 or it will fail to fulfill its

intended function to prevent interim

approval programs from expiring and

being replaced by the Federal permitting

program. On June 1, 2000, all interim

approvals will expire and cannot be reestablished after that date. As discussed

above, expiration of State and local

interim approved programs would

frustrate the ongoing implementation of

the title V permits program by

permitting authorities and be contrary to

the public interest. It would also force

currently un-permitted sources to

resubmit permit applications at the

Federal level, even though they would

have otherwise soon obtained Stateissued permits. In light of the scale of

such a disruption to State programs, it

would be impracticable for EPA to be

able to undertake substitute permitting

responsibilities on such an expeditious

basis to make up for the lost time.

Finally, having to assume permitting

responsibilities would also divert EPA

resources from efforts to assist State and

local agencies in correcting their

programs, and from EPA’s recent

commencement of the Federal

permitting program for sources located

in Indian country.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket for this regulatory action

is A–93–50. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

rulemaking. The principal purposes of

the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties a means to identify and locate

documents so that the parties can

effectively participate in the rulemaking

process and (2) to serve as the record in

case of judicial review (except for

interagency review materials). The

docket is available for public inspection

at EPA’s Air Docket, which is listed

under the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether each regulatory

action is ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore

subject to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) review and the

requirements of the Order. The Order

defines ‘‘significant’’ regulatory action

as one that is likely to lead to a rule that

may:

1. Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more,

adversely and materially affecting a

sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

2. Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency.

3. Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof.

4. Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this action is not a ‘‘significant’’

regulatory action because it does not

substantially change the existing part 70

requirements for States or sources;

requirements which have already

undergone OMB review. Rather than

impose any new requirements, this

action only extends an existing deferral

of those requirements. As such, this

action is exempted from OMB review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Compliance

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

In developing the original part 70

regulations, the Agency determined that

they would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Similarly, the

same conclusion was reached in an

initial regulatory flexibility analysis

performed in support of the proposed

part 70 revisions (a subset of which

constitutes the action in this

rulemaking). This action does not

substantially alter the part 70

regulations as they pertain to small

entities and accordingly will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Rather, it leaves existing State and local

permitting programs in place, whereas

absence of EPA action would cause

them to expire and be replaced by a new

Federal permitting program.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

The OMB has approved the

information collection requirements

contained in part 70 under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has

assigned OMB control number 2060–

0243. The Information Collection

Request (ICR) prepared for part 70 is not

affected by the action in this rulemaking

notice because the part 70 ICR

determined burden on a nationwide

basis, assuming all part 70 sources were

included without regard to the approval

status of individual programs. The

action in this rulemaking notice, which

simply provides for an extension of the

interim approval of certain programs,

does not alter the assumptions of the

approved part 70 ICR used in

determining the burden estimate.

Furthermore, this action does not

impose any additional requirements

which would add to the information

collection requirements for sources or

permitting authorities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with Federal mandates that may result

in expenditures to State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 32039

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that the

action in this rulemaking does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector, in any one year.

Although the part 70 regulations

governing State operating permit

programs impose significant Federal

mandates, this action does not amend

the part 70 regulations in a way that

significantly alters the expenditures

resulting from these mandates.

Therefore, the Agency concludes that it

is not required by section 202 of the

UMRA of 1995 to provide a written

statement to accompany this regulatory

action.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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. The 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. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’

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

G. Applicability of Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1977), applies to any rule that

EPA determines (1) Is ‘‘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 final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not address an

environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on

children.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), 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.

If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to

provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the agency’s position

supporting the need to issue the

regulation, and a statement of the extent

to which the concerns of State and local

officials have been met. Also, when EPA

transmits a draft final rule with

federalism implications to OMB for

review pursuant to Executive Order

12866, EPA must include a certification

from the agency’s Federalism Official

stating that EPA has met the

requirements of Executive Order 13132

in a meaningful and timely manner.

This rule change 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. This rule

change will not create new requirements

but will only extend an existing deferral

to allow permitting authorities to more

efficiently revise their operating permits

programs. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

32040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 99 / Monday, May 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments because it

applies only to State and local

permitting programs. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113,

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by one or more voluntary consensus

standard bodies. The NTTAA directs

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

This rule does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA is not

considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Operating permits.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as set

forth below.

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Appendix A of part 70 is amended

by the following:

a. Revising the date at the end of the

third sentence in paragraph (a) under

Texas to read ‘‘December 1, 2001’’; and

b. Revising the date at the end of the

following paragraphs to read ‘‘December

1, 2001’’: Paragraph (a) under Alaska,

Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida,

Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands,

Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin;

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) under

Alabama and Nevada; paragraphs (a),

(b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(2) under

Arizona; paragraphs (a) through (hh)

under California; paragraphs (a) and (e)

under Tennessee; and paragraphs (a)

through (i) under Washington.

[FR Doc. 00–12789 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 235

[DFARS Case 200–D401]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Research,

Development, Test, and Evaluation

Budget Category Definitions

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Acting Director of

Defense Procurement has issued a final

rule amending the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to remove obsolete definitions

pertaining to research and development

efforts. The rule replaces the obsolete

definitions with a reference to the

current definitions pertaining to

research and development found in the

DoD Financial Management Regulation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Susan Schneider, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council,

PDUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telephone (703) 602–0326;

telefax (703) 602–0350. Please cite

DFARS Case 2000–D401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background

This final rule revises DFARS 235.001

to remove obsolete definitions

pertaining to research and development

and to replace the definitions with a

reference to those in the DoD Financial

Management Regulation (DoD 7000.14–

R).

This rule was not subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

Executive Order 12866, dated

September 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This final rule does not constitute a

significant revision within the meaning

of FAR 1.501 and Public Law 98–577

and publication for public comment is

not required. However, DoD will

consider comments from small entities

concerning the affected DFARS subpart

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such

comments should cite DFARS Case

2000–D401.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the rule does not

impose any information collection

requirements that require the approval

of the Office of Management and Budget

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 235

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, 48 CFR Part 235 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 235 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 235—RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

2. Section 235.001 is revised to read

as follows:

235.001 Definitions.

‘‘Research and development’’ means

those efforts described by the Research,

Development, Test, and Evaluation

(RDT&E) budget activity definitions

found in the DoD Financial

Management Regulation (DoD 7000.14–

R), Volume 2B, Chapter 5.

[FR Doc. 00–12417 Filed 5–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 241

[DFARS Case 99–D309]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Authority

Relating to Utility Privatilization

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Acting Director of

Defense Procurement is adopting as

final, without change, an interim rule

amending the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to implement Section 2812 of

the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 2812

provides that DoD may enter into utility

service contracts related to the

conveyance of a utility system for

periods not to exceed 50 years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Melissa Rider, Defense Acquisition