Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34395

paragraph (i)(1) of this section under the

laws of more than one state, and

(3) * * *

* * * * *

(h) International Stock Index

Investment Fund means the fund

established under 5 U.S.C. 8438(b)(1)(E);

* * * * *

(k) Small Capitalization Stock Index

Investment Fund means the fund

established under 5 U.S.C.

8438(b)(1)(D);

* * * * *

Signed at Washington, DC , this 22nd day

of March, 2000.

Leslie Kramerich,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration, Department

of Labor.

[FR Doc. 00–13250 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH135–1a, FRL–6600–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving, as set

forth below, a request from Ohio for a

revision to the Ohio State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for

transportation conformity. The

transportation conformity SIP revision

enables the State of Ohio to implement

and enforce the Federal transportation

conformity requirements at the State or

local level. The submitted amendments

to Ohio Administrative Code reflect the

third set of EPA revisions to the federal

transportation conformity rules. These

rule changes will assure conformity of

transportation improvement programs,

transportation plans and transportation

projects to the SIP. On October 6, 1999,

the State of Ohio submitted the adopted

rules and public hearing documentation

to EPA and requested a revision to the

federally approved SIP.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31,

2000, unless EPA receives adverse

written comments by June 29, 2000. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register and inform the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the material submitted by

the State in support of this request is

available for inspection at the

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Patricia Morris at (312) 353–8656 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Morris, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

USEPA, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 353–8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

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

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is Transportation Conformity?

B. Why Must the State Submit a

Transportation Conformity SIP?

II. Review of the State Transportation

Conformity Rule.

A. What Did the State Submit?

B. How Does the Submittal Change the

Currently Approved State Transportation

Conformity Rules?

C. What is EPA Approving Today and

Why?

III. Rulemaking Actions

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

C. Executive Order 13045

D. Executive Order 13084

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background

A. What is Transportation Conformity?

The purpose of transportation

conformity is to assure that

transportation plans, programs and

projects, approved by the United States

Department of Transportation conform

to the purpose of the SIP to attain and

maintain the public health based air

quality standards. Conformity

provisions first appeared in the Clean

Air Act (CAA) amendments of 1977

(Public Law 95–95). Although these

provisions did not define the term

conformity, they provided that no

Federal department could engage in,

support in any way or provide financial

assistance for, license or permit, or

approve any activity which did not

conform to a SIP that has been approved

or promulgated for the nonattainment or

maintenance areas.

The CAA Amendments of 1990

expanded the scope and content of the

conformity provisions by defining

conformity to an implementation plan.

Conformity is defined in section 176(c)

of the CAA as conformity to the SIP’s

purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

and achieving expeditious attainment of

such standards, and that affected

activities will not: (1) Cause or

contribute to any new violation of any

standard in any area, (2) increase the

frequency or severity of any existing

violation of any standard in any area, or

(3) delay timely attainment of any

standard or any required interim

emission reductions or other milestones

in any area.

The CAA requires EPA to promulgate

criteria and procedures for determining

conformity of all Federal actions in the

nonattainment or maintenance areas to

the SIP. Actions under title 23 United

States Code (U.S.C.) or the Federal

Transit Act are covered under the

transportation conformity rules codified

at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part

93, subpart A—Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the

Federal Transit Act. The criteria and

procedures developed for all other

federal actions are called ‘‘general

conformity’’ rules.

B. Why Must the State Submit a

Transportation Conformity SIP?

The original 1993 conformity rule

required the States and local agencies to

adopt and submit a transportation

conformity SIP revision to the EPA not

later than November 24, 1994 (40 CFR

51.396). Ohio submitted its SIP revision

for state transportation conformity rules

on August 17, 1995.

The federal transportation conformity

rule however, was amended on August

8, 1995, and again on November 14,

1995. The November 14, 1995,

amendments allow 12 months, or until

November 14, 1996, for States to submit

a transportation conformity SIP revision

consistent with these amendments.

Ohio had submitted state conformity

rules consistent with the original

November 24, 1994, conformity rules on

August 17, 1995, and these rules were

conditionally approved by EPA on May

16, 1996 (61 FR 24702). The condition

of the approval was that Ohio update

the State transportation conformity rules

to be consistent with the federal

amendments. Ohio updated its State

34396 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

rules and met the condition of the

conditional approval within the allotted

time.

The federal conformity rule was again

amended on August 15, 1997 (40 CFR

parts 51 and 93 Transportation

Conformity Rule Amendments:

Flexibility and Streamlining). States

were again given a 12 month time frame

to submit State rules consistent with the

amendment. Ohio proceeded to update

the state transportation conformity rules

and submitted the rules on October 6,

1999 (this submittal is the subject of this

rulemaking action). However, on March

2, 1999, the United States Court of

Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit

issued its opinion in Environmental

Defense Fund v. Environmental

Protection Agency, No. 97–1637. The

Court granted the environmental group’s

petition for review and ruled that

several provisions in the federal

transportation conformity rules were

unlawful. The rules approved in this

rulemaking are consistent with the

August 15, 1997, federal conformity

amendments that remained unchanged

by the Court decision. However, Ohio

will need to submit another

transportation conformity SIP revision

consistent with future amendments to

the transportation conformity rule.

The approval of these State

transportation conformity rules will

update the federally approved State

rules to be more consistent with the

federal conformity rules, thereby

improving the conformity process and

providing consistency with other States

rules and the federal rule.

II. Review of the State Transportation

Conformity Rule

A. What Did the State Submit?

Pursuant to the requirements under

section 176(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act,

the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) submitted a SIP revision

to the EPA on October 6, 1999. In its

submittal, the State adopted State rules

to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part

51, subpart T, and part 93 subpart A, as

published on August 15, 1997.

Transportation conformity is required

for all nonattainment or maintenance

areas for any transportation related

criteria pollutants (40 CFR 51.394 (b)).

The State of Ohio currently has 28

counties which are ozone

nonattainment or ozone maintenance

areas and thus require Ohio to prepare

transportation conformity analyses.

These areas are: Toledo area (Lucas and

Wood Counties), Cleveland/Akron area

(Lorain, Cuyahoga, Medina, Summit,

Portage, Geauga, Lake, and Ashtabula

Counties), Youngstown area (Trumbull

and Mahoning Counties), Canton (Stark

County), Columbus (Franklin, Delaware

and Licking Counties), Cincinnati

(Hamilton, Butler, Clermont, and

Warren Counties), Dayton (Preble,

Montgomery, and Greene Counties),

Springfield (Miami and Clark Counties),

Clinton County, Columbiana County,

and Jefferson County. In addition to the

ozone nonattainment and maintenance

areas, Cuyahoga County is also a

maintenance area for carbon monoxide.

Section 51.390 of the transportation

conformity rule requires that the

majority of the Federal rules be

incorporated verbatim, with only a few

exceptions. In addition, the rule states

that State rules can not be more

stringent than the Federal rules unless

the conformity provisions ‘‘apply

equally to non-federal as well as Federal

entities’’ (40 CFR 51.396(a)). The OEPA

held a public hearing on the

transportation conformity submittal on

December 10, 1998.

B. How Does the Submittal Change the

Currently Approved State

Transportation Conformity Rules?

The currently approved Ohio

conformity rules comply with the 1994

federal conformity regulations. These

federal regulations have been amended

significantly, as discussed in the

previous section. The Ohio submittal

revises the State conformity regulations

consistent with the 1997 Transportation

Conformity Rule Amendments:

Flexibility and Streamlining, which is

the most current federal transportation

conformity regulation.

Section 51.390 of the federal

transportation conformity rule states

that to be approved by the EPA, the

submitted SIP revision must ‘‘address

all requirements of this subpart in a

manner which gives them full legal

effect.’’ In particular, the revision shall

incorporate the provisions of the

following sections verbatim, except

insofar as needed to give effect to a

stated intent in the revision to establish

criteria and procedure more stringent

than the requirements stated in these

sections: 93.101, 93.102, 93.103, 93.104,

93.106, 93.109, 93.110, 93.111, 93.112,

93.113, 93.114, 93.115, 93.116, 93.117,

93.118, 93.119, 93.120, 93.121, 93.126,

and 93.127. The State of Ohio submittal

incorporated all of the above sections

verbatim following the August 15, 1997

version of the federal rules, with only

clarifying changes. The criteria and

procedures for consultation between

State and local agencies, metropolitan

planning organizations and federal

agencies were changed from the

previous State consultation rules. These

changes are not being approved, as

discussed further in the next section.

C. What is EPA Approving Today and

Why?

We are approving certain sections of

the Ohio transportation conformity rule

amendments which were adopted on

January 26, 1999, and became effective

on February 16, 1999.

The following is a summary of the

Ohio Administrative Code and the

sections that are being approved and

why, and the sections that are not being

approved and why:

OAC 3745–101–02 Definitions. These

definitions are consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

This rule is being approved.

OAC 3745–101–03 (A), (B), (C), (D),

(G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L) Applicability,

priority, and frequency of conformity

determinations. The sections listed are

being approved as consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

However, sections (E) and (F) are not

being approved. Section E allows

projects to proceed to completion after

completing the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. This

provision was struck down by the court

in case No. 97–1637. Section F allows

a grace period of 12 months for new

nonattainment areas. This was

disallowed by the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit in case No. 96–1007.

OAC 3745–101–04 Consultation. This

section is not being approved. The State

is required to promulgate procedures

and rules for consultation between State

and local agencies, metropolitan

planning organizations and federal

agencies. Although this section has not

been affected by the Court decisions, the

submitted version does not have the

detail of the previously approved

consultation rule. Therefore, rule OAC

3745–101–04 will remain the same as

previously approved.

OAC 3745–101–05 Content of

transportation plans. This section is

being approved. It is consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–06 Relationship with

NEPA and fiscal constraints. This

section is being approved. It is

consistent with the federal rule and the

Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–07 Criteria and

procedures for conformity

determination, assumptions, emissions

model, and consultation. Sections A, B,

C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are being

approved except for the parts of the

sections which require a submitted

budget to be used 45 days after

submittal to EPA. These sections are

contrary to the March 2, 1999, Court

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34397

decisions. The parts of sections that are

not being approved are as follows: OAC

3745–101–07 (C)(1)(a), (C)(2)(a),

OAC 3745–101–08 Criteria and

procedures for implementation of TCMs,

current conformity, and projects from a

plan and TIP. This section is being

approved. It is consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–09 Localized CO and

PM10 violations and compliance with

PM10 control measures. This section is

being approved. It is consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–10 Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets. Sections A, B, C and

D are being approved because these

sections are consistent with the federal

rule and the Court decisions. Section E

is not being approved because it is not

consistent with the March 2, 1999 Court

decisions.

OAC 3745–101–11 Criteria and

Procedures: Emission Reductions in

Areas Without Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets. This section is being approved.

It is consistent with the federal rule and

the Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–12 Consequences of

Control Strategy Implementation Plan

Failures. This section is being approved

because it is consistent with the federal

rule and the Court decisions, except for

section (A)(2) which allows 120 days

after a control strategy SIP disapproval

before a conformity lapse takes effect.

The Court ruled that a conformity lapse

must take effect on the same day as the

effective date of a control strategy

disapproval.

OAC 3745–101–13 Requirements for

Adoption or Approval of Projects by

Other Recipients of Funds Designated

Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal

Transit Laws. This section is being

approved because it is consistent with

the federal rule and the Court decisions,

except for section (A)(1) which allows a

regionally significant project in the first

3 years of the Transportation

Improvement Program to proceed

during a conformity lapse. This

provision was rescinded by the Court.

OAC 3745–101–14 Procedures for

Determining Regional TransportationRelated Emissions. This section is being

approved. It is consistent with the

federal rule and the Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–15 Procedures for

Determining Localized CO and PM10

Concentrations (Hot-Spot Analysis).

This section is being approved. It is

consistent with the federal rule and the

Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–17 Enforceability of

design concept and scope and projectlevel mitigation and control measures.

This section is being approved. It is

consistent with the federal rule and the

Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–18 Exempt projects.

This section is being approved. It is

consistent with the federal rule and the

Court decisions.

OAC 3745–101–19 Traffic Signal

Synchronization Projects. This section

is being approved. It is consistent with

the federal rule and the Court decisions.

III. Rulemaking Actions

EPA is approving portions of the Ohio

Transportation Conformity SIP revision

submitted on October 6, 1999. EPA is

only approving the sections detailed in

the above listing. The rules being

approved are consistent with the federal

transportation conformity rule and the

subsequent Court decisions. EPA is

publishing this action without prior

proposal because EPA views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse written comments be

filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless EPA

receives significant and relevant adverse

written comments by June 29, 2000.

Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish a final rule

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on July 31, 2000.

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 Orders on Federalism

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If

the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent

of EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected state, local,

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected officials and

other representatives of state, local, and

tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’ Today’s rule does not create

a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton

issued a new executive order on

federalism, Executive Order 13132, (64

FR 43255 (August 10, 1999),) which will

take effect on November 2, 1999. In the

interim, the current Executive Order

12612, (52 FR 41685 (October 30,

1987),) on federalism still applies. This

rule will not have a substantial direct

effect on 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 12612. The

rule affects only one State, and does not

alter the relationship or the distribution

of power and responsibilities

established in the Clean Air Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

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.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

34398 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

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.

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 31, 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Transportation conformity,

Transportation-air quality planning,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 14, 2000.

Elissa Speizman,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(122) On October 6, 1999, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

submitted revised Transportation

Conformity rules for the State of Ohio.

The submittal made revisions to the

current State plan for the

implementation of the federal

transportation conformity requirements

at the State and local level in

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart

T—Conformity to State or Federal

Implementation Plans of Transportation

Plans, Programs, and Projects

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 30, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34399

Developed, Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act. Only certain sections of the

submittal are approved.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ohio Administrative Code:

amended rules, OAC 3745–101–02,

OAC 3745–101–03 (A), (B), (C), (D), (G),

(H), (I), (J), (K), (L), except (E) and (F),

OAC 3745–101–05, OAC 3745–101–06,

OAC 3745–101–07 (A), (B), (C) except

for (C)(1)(a) and (C)(2)(a), (D), (E), (F),

(G), (H), (I), (J), OAC 3745–101–08, OAC

3745–101–09, OAC 3745–101–10, OAC

3745–101–11, OAC 3745–101–12 except

for (A)(2), OAC 3745–101–13 except

(A)(1), OAC 3745–101–14, OAC 3745–

101–15, OAC 3745–101–17, OAC 3745–

101–18, OAC 3745–101–19, effective on

February 16, 1999.

(B) No action is being taken on: OAC

3745–101–04.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13334 Filed 5–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO–001–0037a; FRL–6706–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air

Quality Planning Purposes, Canon City

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On September 22, 1997, the

Governor of the State of Colorado

submitted a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision for the purpose of

establishing a redesignation for the

Canon City, Colorado area from

nonattainment to attainment for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 microns (PM10) under the 1987

standards. The Colorado Air Pollution

Control Division’s (Colorado) submittal,

among other things, documents that the

Canon City area has attained the PM10

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS), requests redesignation to

attainment and includes a maintenance

plan for the area demonstrating

maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS for ten

years. EPA is approving the

redesignation request and maintenance

plan because the State has met the

applicable requirements of the Clean Air

Act, as amended. Subsequent to this

approval, the Canon City area will be

designated attainment for the PM10

NAAQS. This action is being taken

under sections 107, 110, and 175A of

the Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31,

2000, without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by June

29, 2000. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P–

AR, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado, 80202.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air and Radiation Program,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, Colorado, 80202. Copies of the

state documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection at the

Colorado Department of Public Health

and Environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cindy Rosenberg, EPA, Region VIII,

(303) 312–6436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA’s Final Action

What Action is EPA Taking in This Direct

Final Rule?

II. Summary of Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be Followed

for Redesignations to Attainment?

B. Does the Canon City Redesignation

Request and Maintenance Plan Meet the

CAA Requirements?

C. Have the Transportation Conformity

Requirements Been Met?

D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper

Procedures for Adopting This Action?

III. Background

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA’s Final Action

What Action Is EPA Taking in This

Direct Final Rule?

We are approving the Governor’s

submittal of September 22, 1997, that

requests a redesignation for the Canon

City nonattainment area to attainment

for the 1987 PM10 standards. We are also

approving the maintenance plan for the

Canon City PM10 nonattainment area,

which was submitted with the State’s

September 22, 1997 redesignation

request. We are approving this request

and maintenance plan because Colorado

has adequately addressed all of the

requirements of the Act for

redesignation to attainment applicable

to the Canon City PM10 nonattainment

area. Upon the effective date of this

action, the Canon City area’s

designation status under 40 CFR part 81

will be revised to attainment.

We are publishing this rule without

prior proposal because we view this as

a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should adverse comments be filed. This

rule will be effective July 31, 2000,

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

June 29, 2000.

If we receive such comments, then we

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. All

public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. We will not

institute a second comment period on

this rule. Any parties interested in

commenting on this rule should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

rule will be effective on July 31, 2000,

and no further action will be taken on

the proposed rule.

II. Summary of Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be

Followed for Redesignations to

Attainment?

In order for a nonattainment area to be

redesignated to attainment, the

following conditions in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the Act must be met:

(i) We must determine that the area

has attained the NAAQS;

(ii) The applicable implementation

plan for the area must be fully approved

under section 110(k) of the Act;

(iii) We must determine that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions;

(iv) We must fully approve a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of CAA

section 175A; and,

(v) The State containing such area

must meet all requirements applicable

to the area under section 110 and part

D of the CAA.