Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33455

the person has submitted the fee(s)

required by law or regulation. The

Credit Card Form provides the public

with a convenient manner of paying a

patent application or service fee,

trademark application or service fee, or

information product fee by credit card.

Interested persons are requested to

send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspects of the

information requirements, including

suggestions for reducing the burden, to

Robert J. Spar, Director, Office of Patent

Legal Administration, United States

Patent and Trademark Office,

Washington, D.C. 20231, or to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs of

OMB, New Executive Office Building,

725 17th Street, N.W., Room 10235,

Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:

Desk Officer for the United States Patent

and Trademark Office.

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to nor shall a person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act unless that collection of

information displays a currently valid

OMB control number.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Courts, Freedom of

Information, Inventions and patents,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Small businesses.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 37 CFR Part 1 is amended as

follows:

PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN

PATENT CASES

1. The authority citation for 37 CFR

Part 1 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2).

2. Section 1.21 is amended by revising

paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 1.21 Miscellaneous fees and charges.

* * * * *

(m) For processing each payment

refused (including a check returned

‘‘unpaid’’) or charged back by a

financial institution—$50.00.

* * * * *

3. Section 1.23 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 1.23 Methods of payment.

(a) All payments of money required

for United States Patent and Trademark

Office fees, including fees for the

processing of international applications

(§ 1.445), shall be made in U.S. dollars

and in the form of a cashier’s or certified

check, Treasury note, national bank

notes, or United States Postal Service

money order. If sent in any other form,

the Office may delay or cancel the credit

until collection is made. Checks and

money orders must be made payable to

the Director of the United States Patent

and Trademark Office. (Checks made

payable to the Commissioner of Patents

and Trademarks will continue to be

accepted.) Payments from foreign

countries must be payable and

immediately negotiable in the United

States for the full amount of the fee

required. Money sent to the Office by

mail will be at the risk of the sender,

and letters containing money should be

registered with the United States Postal

Service.

(b) Payments of money required for

United States Patent and Trademark

Office fees may also be made by credit

card. Payment of a fee by credit card

must specify the amount to be charged

to the credit card and such other

information as is necessary to process

the charge, and is subject to collection

of the fee. The Office will not accept a

general authorization to charge fees to a

credit card. If credit card information is

provided on a form or document other

than a form provided by the Office for

the payment of fees by credit card, the

Office will not be liable if the credit

card number becomes public

knowledge.

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Q. Todd Dickinson,

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual

Property and Director of the United States

Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 00–12992 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NM39–1–7462; FRL–6703–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of New

Mexico; Approval of Revised

Maintenance Plan and Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets; Albuquerque/

Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Carbon

Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County carbon monoxide (CO) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the

Federal Clean Air Act as Amended in

1990 (the Act). On February 4, 1999, the

Governor requested EPA approval of a

revision to the CO maintenance plan

and motor vehicle emissions budgets

covering 1996 to 2006, and the

establishment of a CO motor vehicle

emissions budget for the year 2010. The

EPA initiated the approval process in

two rule makings, the first for revisions

to the CO maintenance plan and motor

vehicle emissions budgets covering

1996 to 2006, and the second action to

establish a CO motor vehicle emissions

budget for the year 2010. This action is

a final approval of both actions;

revisions to the CO maintenance plan,

and the CO Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budget for 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006,

and 2010. These CO Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets are for transportation

conformity purposes.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Anyone wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733.

Albuquerque Environmental Health

Department, Air Pollution Control

Division, One Civic Plaza,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Matthew Witosky of the EPA Region 6

Air Planning Section, at (214) 665–7214,

or WITOSKY.MATTHEW@EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

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

the EPA.

1. What Action Is EPA Taking?

The EPA is promulgating final

approval of revisions to the

Albuquerque CO maintenance plan. The

original plan was approved in 1996 (61

FR 29970). In a document published

December 20, 1999, the EPA published

a direct final approval of revisions to the

CO maintenance plan and related

conformity budgets (64 FR 71027), with

a companion proposed rule (64 FR

71086). The companion proposed rule

was published in the event we received

adverse comments, which we did. The

direct final rule was withdrawn on

February 14, 2000 (65 FR 7290). That

document indicated that final action

would be forthcoming.

The EPA also proposed approval of a

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

33456 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(MVEB) for 2010 for the CO

maintenance area. That notice was

published on February 29, 2000,

beginning a 30 day public comment

period (65 FR 10437). No comments

were received on this proposed action.

Today’s action is final approval and

promulgation of both actions.

2. What Is Being Approved?

First, we are approving revisions to

the CO maintenance plan’s emission

inventory for the nonattainment area.

The following table summarizes the

emission inventory for Albuquerque.

ALBUQUERQUE MAINTENANCE PLAN

[Carbon monoxide emissions in tons per day (tpd): revised maintenance plan]

Category 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006

Highway Mobile ........................................................................................ 266.99 229.09 209.01 205.67 205.86

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................... 50.90 52.68 54.46 56.25 56.84

Area ......................................................................................................... 67.19 69.87 72.60 75.25 76.09

Stationary ................................................................................................. 3.92 27.40 27.54 27.68 27.72

Total .................................................................................................. 389.00 379.04 363.61 364.85 366.51

The EPA is also approving a series of MVEB’s for the region, including a MVEB for the year 2010, which is

beyond the current 10 year maintenance plan. These approved MVEB’s are as follows:

TABLE 2.—ALBUQUERQUE CO MAINTENANCE PLAN

[Motor vehicle emissions budget (in tpd)]

Year 1996 1999 2002 2005 2006 2010

MVEB ............................................................................... 266.99 229.09 209.01 205.67 205.86 222.46

3. How Will These MVEB’s Be Used?

These MVEB’s will be used for

transportation conformity purposes,

replacing the budgets in the original

maintenance plan. The five year

Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP) and 20 year transportation plans

for the Albuquerque region and

corresponding emissions from on-road

vehicles cannot surpass the above

budgets.

4. When Is EPA’s Approval Effective?

This action concerns only approval of

the revised maintenance plan and

MVEB’s. Since December of 1999, the

Albuquerque area has been in a

conformity lapse, during which time

certain transportation projects cannot be

approved, accepted, or funded. The EPA

is making this action effective upon

publication to facilitate the conformity

process.

The EPA reminds all parties that this

document does not end the conformity

lapse. The EPA, FHWA, State, and local

planning agencies are working to

complete the conformity process. The

final conformity determination will be

made by the FHWA.

Under the Administrative Procedures

Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency

rule makings may take effect before 30

days after the date of publication in the

Federal Register if an agency has good

cause to mandate an earlier effective

date. It’s the EPA’s position that

approving the necessary budgets as soon

as possible, in the interest of facilitating

the end of the conformity lapse, is cause

to support making this action taking

effect on publication.

5. What Comments Did EPA Receive

to the Direct Final Notice?

Comment 1

Several parties stated that the

Albuquerque Environmental Health

Department (AEHD) is inverting the

conformity process by setting a MVEB

budget to fit a transportation plan. One

party stated that the AEHD elected to

revise the maintenance plan budget

when the transportation plans could not

conform. The party further stated that

there is no data to show that the

increase in VMT being incorporated into

the budget is due solely to the

unexpected growth in population.

Response

The Clean Air Act as Amended in

1990, hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Act,’’

does not prohibit that maintenance

areas review and revise their

maintenance plans. As long as areas

demonstrate continued maintenance,

areas may revise them at their

discretion, in accordance with the

requirements of the Act, EPA’s rules,

and applicable guidance. Many areas

revise them to estimate, more

accurately, emissions that have grown at

a rate different than the rate assumed in

the original maintenance plan. All

maintenance plans are revised after

eight years, extending them an

additional ten years. The AEHD elected

to revise several elements of the

inventory to make it more accurate. All

of the emissions categories were revised

as a result of this review.

Similarly, the Act allows areas to

revise their Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budget, so long as the area demonstrates

they will maintain the standard. The

revision submitted to the EPA shows

total emissions in the area will remain

at or below the emissions quantified in

the attainment year. This constitutes an

acceptable demonstration of continued

attainment of the CO standard. (See the

Act section 110, see also the preamble

to the conformity rule at 58 FR 62196 on

how to revise the budget and see 40 CFR

93.118).

Comment 2

The party alleged that the AEHD

incorporated inappropriate assumptions

used in the transportation model into

the mobile modeling used to support the

SIP revision. The party objected to

straight-line interpolation of VMT levels

as an inappropriate technique to

estimate emissions.

Response

The EPA provided for interpolation as

an acceptable method of estimating

emissions for regulatory purposes in

guidance documents for completing

SIP’s. Specifically, the EPA guided

planning agencies to use interpolation

to estimate emissions for projected

inventories, where it would be too

costly and time-consuming to generate

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33457

analyses for the interim years within a

specified time period. The EPA issued

this guidance for VMT growth factors

(Procedures for Preparing Emissions

Projections, 1991, page 29), and speeds

(Procedures for Emission Inventory

Preparation, 1992, page 31), and

therefore, emissions.

In the case of Albuquerque, the MPO

projected VMT for 1995, 2000, 2005,

and 2010 using their transportation

model, and per EPA guidance,

calibrated the model using Highway

Performance Measurement System

(HPMS)-based factors. Since the

maintenance plan was required to begin

in 1996 and conclude in 2006, the

AEHD used interpolation to determine

the appropriate emissions for interim

years. This is acceptable under EPA

guidance.

The EPA reviewed the other Mobile5a

inputs that represent assumptions about

local conditions. It is EPA’s position

that these assumptions are reasonable

and represent the best information

currently available.

Comment 3

The party stated that the AEHD

incorrectly estimated the impact of BigI construction on vehicle speeds during

construction, and VMT on alternative

routes due to construction.

Response

The AEHD is not required to quantify

and incorporate the impact of

construction in their MVEB in the SIP,

because the impact of such construction

is considered temporary. Emission

inventory guidance does not instruct

areas to quantify mobile emissions at

the level of discrete construction

projects.

We would point out that we cannot

make an exception for a violation of the

standard that could be attributed to

temporary traffic conditions related to

construction. While the MVEB does not

have to include these temporary

emissions, we do support the efforts of

the AEHD and other agencies to mitigate

them during the construction phase to

avoid possible violations.

Comment 4

The party alleged that the AEHD used

the 2010 roadway network to calculate

emissions for the 2006 projections.

Response

The proposed revision does not use

the 2010 road network as the basis for

determining VMT and then emissions in

2006. The projections for 2006 were

based on interpolation between the two

years for which the AEHD conducted

VMT and emissions analysis using the

more direct method of estimation. This

method used complete street

inventories, as they are expected to be

in 2005 and 2010. Interpolation between

these years allocates growth in VMT and

emissions to each year during the period

being studied. This does not mean that

the impact of all road improvements

scheduled to take place between 2005

and 2010 are being used to calculate

emissions in 2006. As mentioned in a

previous response, this interpolation

technique is acceptable under EPA

guidance.

Comment 5

The party stated that the AEHD used

travel demand management programs

(TDM’s) or transportation control

measures (TCM’s) to reduce VMT used

to set the emissions budget, even though

the TDM’s and TCM’s do not have

designated sources of funding and are

not in the federally approved SIP.

Response

The AEHD did not use any TCM’s or

TDM’s to calculate the base emission

inventory, project future inventories, or

set the corresponding MVEB’s. The

AEHD used VMT projections provided

to them by the Middle Rio Grand

Council of Governments, the authorized

MPO in the area. In a letter dated March

26, 1997, the AEHD specifically

requested that the MPO not use any

VMT reduction programs in the analysis

they were to submit. The City’s revision

package submitted to the EPA included

a summary of the VMT calculation

methodology written by the MPO, dated

September 11, 1997. That summary

stated that the MPO did not use any

VMT mitigation programs in the VMT

estimates that they were providing.

These estimates were then used in the

inventory process.

The party referred to measures used to

mitigate VMT growth in the effort to

meet the MVEB. Those measures were

not in the SIP revision, but were

incorporated into the conformity

analysis, as permitted under the

transportation conformity rule. The

conformity analysis is under review by

the EPA. After review and comment by

the EPA, FHWA issues its determination

on conformity.

Comment 6

The party alleged that population was

attributed to areas that will not have

road access until after 2020.

Response

The EPA would remind the party that

the action is for approval of the

maintenance plan to 2006, and the

MVEB to 2010. The EPA reviewed maps

available to the general public (‘‘tiger’’

maps generated on April 28, 2000, from

http://www.census.gov) at the U.S.

Census Bureau web site of the

referenced areas, and found road access

to these areas.

Comment 7

The party stated that the road

improvements from the Big I project

would induce changes in trip patterns,

traffic patterns, and speed that were not

adequately captured in the modeling.

Response

The model used by the MPO is

appropriate and able to represent these

changes. It is EPA’s position that the

MPO followed appropriate guidance in

using the model to project changes in

VMT and speed that result from

transportation system improvements,

the kind of changes in VMT the model

was designed to measure.

Comment 8

The party alleged that compliance

with the Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M) program and anti-tampering

enforcement rates were too high. The

party said that a 95 percent compliance

rate was too high, and the AEHD should

have used 90 percent compliance.

Response

The AEHD based their assumption on

the national default rate, 96 percent, for

approved I/M programs. The AEHD

reduced the compliance rate from 96 to

95 percent to be slightly more

conservative than the national

compliance factor. The EPA receives

and reviews periodic summary reports

for the program, and finds the

assumption reasonable.

Comment 9

The party stated that the AEHD used

national default fleet mix and national

default mileage accrual rates, when they

should have developed their own fleet

mix and mileage rates from the I/M

program.

Response

Agencies using the Mobile model may

use EPA’s national default values for

these model inputs (See Mobile 5 Users

manual). Although the EPA

acknowledges that data generated

locally is likely to reflect local

conditions more accurately, this is at the

discretion of the planning agencies.

EPA’s default values are acceptable for

areas that elect not to develop their

own, until the EPA can update the

model and related default values.

33458 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Comment 10

The party objected to setting urban

and rural local road speeds to a constant

25 and 20 miles per hour.

Response

The modeling does reflect that the

MPO set traffic speed on all urban local

roads to an average of 25 miles per hour,

and traffic on rural local roads to

average 20 miles per hour. An

assumption had to be made because the

HPMS does not provide data on local

roads. For all other road categories, the

model employs actual field data to

calibrate speeds. The assumption of 20

and 25 miles per hour on local roads

was reasonable, and resulted in higher

emission factors than such factors for

any other road class. The proportion of

all traffic on local roads was about ten

percent. Local planning agencies are left

to make reasonable judgments to

estimate speed on these roads. In EPA’s

opinion, these are reasonable

assumptions.

The EPA further analyzed this issue

by comparing the VMT and speed data

used in the SIP to the data used in the

transportation plans now under

conformity review. The MPO used the

same projected VMT and speed

estimates for this SIP, and the

corresponding transportation plan and

TIP. Since the MPO used identical

numbers for both analyses, the impact of

the traffic speed assumption vis-a-vis

another assumption is minimal.

Comment 11

The party alleges that the AEHD

modeled lower speeds and lower

emissions by using a speed enforcement

program, without documentation to

support including such a program.

Response

The projected speeds used to compute

the emissions in the SIP revision

decreased slightly over time. The EPA

reviewed the emission projections in

detail and concluded that lower speeds

are more a product of increased VMT.

Speed estimates on such roadway

segments are the product of the

transportation model. As pointed out

above, the Albuquerque MPO

appropriately employed an endorsed

model that, under an assumption of

continued VMT growth, would induce

lower speeds in future years.

Comment 12

The Party contends that the

Albuquerque vehicle fleet is not as clean

as the national average. The party also

stated that the model runs did not

differentiate the fleet mix by roadway

class.

Response

Under EPA guidance, the AEHD can

rely on national default values for

vehicle fleet mix and vehicle mileage

accrual rates. When the model uses

defaults for the mix and mileage rates,

the fleet mix by roadway class also

becomes an implicit default variable.

(Mobile 5 Users Guide, sec. 2.2.2, and

2.2.3).

Comment 13

The Party contends that the goal for

decreasing reliance on the Single

Occupant Vehicle (SOV) was relaxed

from the 2015 plan to the 2020 plan.

Response

Beyond a demonstration of continued

maintenance, the issue is not germane to

this action. Local agencies have the

discretion to elect how they will

maintain the standard. The EPA

encourages areas to take actions to

reduce reliance on the SOV. However,

AEHD’s revision demonstrates

continued attainment with credible

analysis, which meets the requirements

of the Act.

Comment 14

The Party contends that the 1.4 billion

dollars needed to implement the 2020

Plan has not been secured, because the

Regional Transit Authority was not

granted taxing authority. The Party

claims that a line item of $100 million

dollars in the 2000 to 2005 plan to

purchase busses was deleted, but

remained in the first five years of the

2020 plan.

Response

The comment is not germane to this

SIP action, because transit

improvements were not employed in

generating the VMT projections used by

the AEHD to project emissions for the

inventory and MVEB. The issues of

fiscal constraint are beyond the scope of

this SIP approval action and should be

addressed in the transportation

conformity process.

Comment 15

The Party alleges that building

additional road capacity produces more

VMT, but that the model is inadequate

to capture this. The party contends that

the model predicts lower emissions as a

result of road expansion, when the

model should predict more emissions.

Response

The MPO used an endorsed

transportation model, currently the best

tool available to planning agencies. All

areas that employ models must show

that their model predicts, with

reasonable accuracy, the impact of

transportation improvements. This

process, called calibration and

validation, was performed in order for

the modeling results to be acceptable.

The EPA encourages the party to bring

their concerns into the conformity

process through the established public

participation process.

Comment 16

The Party states that they regularly

commute by bicycle, and observes fewer

bicycles on the road despite the increase

in facilities. The party says this

observation contradicts the assumption

of the MPO that increased bicycle

ridership will reduce VMT.

Response

The assumption of increased bicycle

ridership was not used to estimate VMT,

and therefore did not affect emissions in

the SIP MVEB.

Comment 17

The Party asked if recent ozone

readings presage nonattainment of

ozone, that would result through a

greater allowance for CO emissions.

Response

The AEHD is not required to

demonstrate maintenance of the ozone

standard in order to revise their CO

maintenance plan in the CO SIP. The

concept of conformity was created in

the Act to insure that the growth of

VMT and on-road emissions did not

interfere with attainment and

maintenance of national standards. Any

actions that AEHD or EPA might take to

continue ozone maintenance must be

under the legal framework established

for control of ozone precursors.

Currently there is no monitoring data

that indicate ozone violations. If

evidence ever shows there are

violations, the EPA can issue a SIP call

for the area to submit an ozone SIP. An

EPA SIP call and/or a designation to

ozone nonattainment would, in fact,

compel the area to perform conformity

analysis for ozone precursors.

The EPA is acting on a revision to the

CO SIP, which meets the requirements

for such a revision.

Comment 18

The Party asked what would prevent

the AEHD from asking for another

revision to the MVEB, in three or four

years?

Response

The AEHD could request another

revision to the MVEB at a later date. The

AEHD must extend the initial

maintenance plan an additional ten

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33459

years before the initial maintenance

plan expires in 2006. However, basinwide emissions must remain below 389

tons per day as established in the

maintenance plan.

Comment 19

The Party asks that the EPA issue a

conditional approval, with the

condition that the transportation model

be improved. The Party also requested

that approval be conditioned on a

commitment from the MPO to a

balanced transportation system.

Response

The EPA’s review and approval is

based on whether the Albuquerque area

can maintain the CO standard and

prevent violations of the CO standard

with a revised MVEB (see section 110 of

the Act). It’s EPA’s opinion that AEHD

successfully demonstrated that

Albuquerque will continue to maintain

the CO standard with a revised MVEB.

6. What Comments Did EPA Receive to

the February 28, 2000, Proposed Rule?

The EPA received no comments to

that proposed rule.

7. Will Albuquerque have to Revise the

Inventory and MVEB’s Again?

Albuquerque must revise the

maintenance plan again by 2004, to

extend the maintenance plan an

additional 10 years from the final year

of the current plan, 2006. This will

cover the years from 2006 to 2016. This

may result in changes to the 2006, and

2010 budgets established today.

Regardless, the area must remain below

the total level of CO emissions

established in the maintenance plan to

demonstrate continued attainment of

the standard.

II. Final Action

The EPA is approving revisions to the

Albuquerque/ Bernalillo County carbon

monoxide (CO) State Implementation

Plan (SIP). This action is a final

approval of revisions to each of the

categories of the CO emissions

inventory, the basin-wide total of CO

emissions for the area, and the CO

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for

1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2010.

The CO Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets must be used for transportation

conformity purposes once this approval

is effective.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13132

Executive 13132, entitled

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

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Order 12612, ‘‘Federalism,’’ and

Executive Order 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. The 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 final 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, 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 Act.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. 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.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Order has the potential to influence

the regulation. This final rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

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 the 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.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian tribes.

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, 5

U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally requires an

agency to conduct a regulatory

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rule making

requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

33460 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit 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 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

Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state

action. The Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. See 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, 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.

The 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. 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.

A major rule can not 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.

804(2). This rule will be effective May

24, 2000.

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 24, 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, Intergovernmental

Relations, Carbon Monoxide.

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Gregg A. Cooke,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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 GG—New Mexico

2. In § 52.1620(e) the table at the end

of the paragraph is amended by adding

a new entry to the end of the table as

follows:

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(e) EPA approved nonregulatory

provisions.

* * * * *

EPA APPROVED NEW MEXICO STATUTES IN THE CURRENT NEW MEXICO SIP

State citation Title/subject State approval/effective date EPA approval date Comments

*******

City of Albuquerque

request for redesignation.

Carbon monoxide maintenance plan and

motor vehicle emission budgets.

June 22, 1998. ......... [Insert date of publication and FR

page number].

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 24, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33461

[FR Doc. 00–12792 Filed 5–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[AD–FRL–6603–5]

RIN 2060–ZA03

Federal Plan Requirements for Large

Municipal Waste Combustors

Constructed On or Before September

20, 1994

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action on the ‘‘Federal Plan

Requirements for Large Municipal

Waste Combustors Constructed on or

Before September 20, 1994.’’ The

amendments in this document clarify

the final compliance date, update the

list of which large municipal waste

combustor (MWC) units are affected by

the Federal plan, and add a site-specific

compliance schedule for one MWC unit.

On November 12, 1998, the EPA

adopted the Federal plan to implement

emission guidelines for large MWC

units located in areas that are not

covered by an approved and currently

effective State plan. We are updating the

MWC Federal plan to identify large

MWC units for which a State plan was

approved and became effective since

adoption of the Federal plan (November

12, 1998). We are also amending certain

regulations to reflect receipt of negative

declarations from States that have

certified that there are no large MWC

units located in the State that would be

subject to the Federal plan. We are also

amending a table in the Federal plan to

clarify that in all cases for all large

MWC units, final compliance with all

emission limits including the mercury

(Hg) and dioxins/furans emission limits

must be achieved by December 19, 2000.

Finally, we are amending a table to add

the site-specific compliance schedule

for one additional MWC unit. Today’s

action does not change the emission

limits for large MWC units nor does it

change the level of health protection

that the Federal plan provides.

DATES: These amendments to part 62 are

effective on July 24, 2000, without

further notice unless we receive

significant material adverse comments

by June 23, 2000. If we receive such

comments, we will publish, on or before

this rule’s effective date, a document in

the Federal Register withdrawing this

direct final rule and informing the

public that this direct final rule will not

take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (MC–6102), Attn:

Docket No. A–97–45/Category V–D, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically. For information on

submitting comments electronically, see

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

Address all comments and data for this

action, whether on paper or in

electronic form, such as through e-mail

or disk, to Docket No. A–97–45/

Category V–D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

procedural and implementation

information regarding these

amendments, contact Ms. Julie

Andresen McClintock at (919) 541–

5339, Program Implementation and

Review Group, Information Transfer and

Program Integration Division (MD–12),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711. For State-specific information

regarding the implementation of this

Federal plan, contact the appropriate

Regional Office (table 1) as shown in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Docket. Docket No. A–97–45 contains

information considered by EPA in

developing the MWC Federal plan and

this action. You can inspect the docket

and copy materials from 8 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays. The docket is located at

the EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Waterside Mall,

Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202) 260–7548 or fax (202) 260–4400. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are

publishing these amendments without

prior proposal because we view these

amendments as noncontroversial and

anticipate no adverse comment.

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 these amendments if

adverse comments are filed. These

amendments will be effective on July

24, 2000, without further notice unless

we receive adverse comment on the

parallel proposal by June 23, 2000. If we

receive such comments, we will publish

a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that these

amendments will not take effect. We

will address all public comments in a

subsequent final amendment package

based on the proposed amendments. We

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting must do so at

this time. If no comments are received,

the public is advised that these

amendments will be effective on July

24, 2000, and no further action will be

taken on these amendments.

Regulated Entities

Entities regulated by this action are

existing MWC units with the capacity to

combust greater than 250 tons per day

of municipal solid waste (MSW) (large

MWC units) unless the unit is subject to

a section 111(d)/129 State plan that has

been approved by EPA and is currently

in effect. Regulated categories and

entities include the following North

American Industrial Classification

System (NAICS) codes and Standard

Industrial Classification System (SIC)

codes.

Category NAICS

codes SIC codes Examples of regulated entities

Industry and local government agencies.562213

92411

4953

9511

Waste-to-energy plants that generate electricity or steam from the combustion of garbage by feeding municipal waste into large furnaces.

Incinerators that combust trash but do not recover energy from the waste.

The foregoing table is not intended to

be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities

likely to be regulated by the MWC

Federal plan. For specific applicability

criteria, see 40 CFR 62.14100 and

62.14102.

Electronic Submittal of Comments

Comments may be submitted

electronically. Send electronic

submittals to: ‘‘A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov’’. Submit