33280 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the amount controls or material changes

reduce a particular pollutant from a

process’ emissions. Control efficiency is

usually expressed as a percentage or in

tenths.

Type A source—Very large point

sources defined by emission thresholds

listed in Table 1.

Type B source—Smaller point sources

defined by emission thresholds listed in

Table 1.

VMT by Roadway Class—Vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) expresses vehicle

activity and is used with emission

factors. The emission factors are usually

expressed in terms of grams per mile of

travel. Because VMT doesn’t correlate

directly to emissions that occur while

the vehicle isn’t moving, these nonmoving emissions are incorporated into

the emission factors in EPA’s Mobile

Model.

Winter throughput (%)—Part of

throughput or activity for the three

winter months (December, January,

February). See the definition of Fall

Throughput.

Wk/yr in operation—Weeks per year

that the emitting process operates.

Work weekday—Any day of the week

except Saturday or Sunday.

X stack coordinate (latitude)—An

object’s east-west geographical

coordinate. Y stack coordinate

(longitude)—An object’s north-south

geographical coordinate.

Appendix B [Reserved]

Subpart Q—[Amended]

3. Section 51.322 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.322 Sources subject to emissions

reporting.

The requirements for reporting

emissions data under the plan are in

§ 51.1 of this part.

4. Section 51.323 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 51.323 Reportable emissions data and

information.

The requirements for reportable

emissions data and information under

the plan are in subpart A of this part 51.

[FR Doc. 00–12787 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 031–0237; FRL–6704–2]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to remove

revisions to the SCAQMD portion of the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). These revisions concern

Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from

Process Heaters and Boilers in

Petroleum Refineries. We are proposing

to remove a final limited approval and

limited disapproval of a local rule that

was published on January 13, 2000 (65

FR 2052).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by June 22. 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted rule revisions at our Region

IX office during normal business hours.

You may also see copies of the

submitted rule revisions at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley

Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal addresses the South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) adopted Rule 1109,

Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from

Process Heaters and Boilers in

Petroleum Refineries. In the Rules and

Regulations section of this Federal

Register, we are removing our previous

limited approval and limited

disapproval of this local rule in a direct

final action without prior proposal

because we believe this removal is not

controversial. If we receive adverse

comments, however, we will publish a

timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule removal and address the comments

in subsequent action based on this

proposed rule. We do not plan to open

a second comment period, so anyone

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If we do not receive adverse

comments, no further activity is

planned. For further information, please

see the direct final action.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

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

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly 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 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33281

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.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. 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

proposed action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: May 9, 2000.

Keith Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–12786 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94–129; DA 00–1093]

Common Carrier Bureau Asks Parties

To Refresh Record and Seek

Additional Comment on Proposal To

Require Resellers To Obtain Carrier

Identification Codes

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Solicitation of supplemental

comments.

SUMMARY: In a Further Notice in this

proceeding released on December 23,

1998, the Commission sought comment

on three proposals to address ‘‘soft

slamming’’ and carrier identification

problems arising from the shared use of

carrier identification codes (CICs) by

facilities-based carriers and switchless

resellers of their services. The first

proposal—requiring resellers to obtain

their own CICs—garnered both strong

support and opposition among

commenters. Supporters view it as a