53602 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

correcting the violation definition

deficiency within one year of EPA’s

final action.

(C) Letter from the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

dated July 31, 2000, supplementing the

April 26, 1999 SIP submittal with the

amended violation provisions.

(D) Guidance for Implementation of

Emissions Monitoring Requirements for

the NOX Budget Program, dated January

28, 1997.

(E) NOX Budget Program Monitoring

Certification and Reporting

Requirements, dated July 3, 1997.

(F) Electronic Data Reporting, Acid

Rain/NOX Budget Program, dated July 3,

1997.

(G) Measurement Protocol for

Commercial, Industrial and Residential

Facilities, April 28, 1993.

3. Section 52.1605 is amended by

adding a new entry for Subchapter 31

under the heading ‘‘Title 7, Chapter 27,’’

to the table, in numerical order to read

as follows:

§ 52.1605 EPA—approved New Jersey

regulations.

State regulation State effective date EPA approved date Comments

*******

Title 7, Chapter 27

*******

Subchapter 31, ‘‘NOX Budget Program.’’.July 20, 1998 ................................ September 5, 2000, [Insert FR

page citation].

Approval of NOX Budget Trading

Program for 1999, 2000, 2001,

2002, 2003 and thereafter.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–22525 Filed 9–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 241–0241a; FRL–6853–7]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District (SMAQMD)

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Under

authority of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we

are approving a local rule that addresses

emergency episodes.

DATES: This rule is effective on

November 6, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comments by October 5, 2000. If we

receive such comment, we will publish

a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register to notify the public that this

rule will not take effect.

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 SIP revision and EPA’s

technical support document (TSD) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see a copy

of the submitted SIP revision at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, 777 12th Street,

3rd Floor, Sacramento, California

95814–1908

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revision?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.

III. Background Information

Why was this rule submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving

with the date that it was adopted by the

local air agency and submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule Title Adopted Submitted

Sacramento .............................................................. 701 Emergency Episode Plan ........................................ 05/27/99 03/28/00

On May 19, 2000, this rule submittal

was found to meet the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,

which must be met before formal EPA

review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This

Rule?

There are previous versions of and

SMAQMD Rule 701 in the SIP. We

approved a version of SMAQMD Rule

701 on December 5, 1984. The

SMAQMD adopted revisions to the SIPapproved version on May 27, 1999, and

CARB submitted it to us on March 28,

2000.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 53603

C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revision?

SMAQMD Rule 701 is revised to

lower the level of PM–10 at which

various episode stages are declared to

ensure that the most severe actions

allowed under the rule are taken before

PM–10 reaches a level of significant

harm.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Rule 701 describes procedures that

must be followed during elevated air

pollution episodes. Such rules must

comply with 40 CFR part 51, subpart H.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with

the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations,

and 40 CFR part 51. The TSD has more

information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the Act, EPA is fully approving the

submitted rule because we believe it

fulfills all relevant requirements. We do

not think anyone will object to this

approval, so we are finalizing it without

proposing it in advance. However, in

the Proposed Rules section of this

Federal Register, we are simultaneously

proposing approval of the same

submitted rule. If we receive adverse

comments by October 5, 2000, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that the direct final approval will not

take effect and we will address the

comments in a subsequent final action

based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on November 6,

2000. This will incorporate this rule

into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires

states to submit regulations that control

volatile organic compounds, oxides of

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other

air pollutants which harm human health

and the environment. This rule was

developed as part of the local agency’s

program to control these pollutants.

Table 2 lists some of the national

milestones leading to the submittal of

this rule.

TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES

Date Event

March 3, 1978 ...................... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964;

40 CFR 81.305.

May 26, 1988 ....................... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA’s SIP-Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act.

November 15, 1990 ............. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-

7671q.

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 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 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

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

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.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, 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

53604 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 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. 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 November 6,

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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: July 28, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(277)(i)(B) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(277) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 701, adopted on May 27,

1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–22651 Filed 9–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P