Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58361

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

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 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 costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action acts

on 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.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s action because it

does not require the public to perform

activities conducive to the use of VCS.

H. 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).

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 28,

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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur Oxides.

Dated: August 18, 2000.

Nora McGee,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. Authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(18)(iv)(C) and

(c)(84)(i)(E) to read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(18) * * *

(iv) * * *

(C) Previously approved on December

17, 1979 and now deleted without

replacement Rule 7–3–2.5.

* * * * *

(84) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Rules 5–22–950, 5–22–960, and 5–

24–1045 codified on February 22, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–24568 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NY43a–212, FRL–

6873–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New York State

Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a

revision to the New York State

Implementation Plan for ozone

concerning the control of volatile

organic compounds and oxides of

nitrogen. This revision was submitted to

comply with provisions of the Clean Air

Act (CAA) relating to the adoption of

vehicle refueling controls or comparable

measure(s) in the upstate portion of

New York State. The intended effect of

this action is to approve a program

required by the CAA which will result

in emission reductions that will help

achieve attainment of the national

ambient air quality standard for ozone.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on November 28, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by October 30, 2000. If EPA

receives such comment, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,

Albany, New York 12233.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

58362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Action Is EPA taking?

II. What Are the CAA Requirements for Stage

II Comparability?

III. What Measures Are Included in New

York’s Stage II Comparability SIP?

IV. Are States Allowed to use NOx Emission

Reductions as a Substitute for Stage II

VOC Emission Reductions?

V. What Is New York’s Stage II Comparability

Analysis?

VI. Why Is EPA Approving New York’s Stage

II Comparability SIP Revision?

VII. Aministrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Action Is EPA taking?

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is approving the Stage II (control

of gasoline vapors resulting from the

refueling of vehicle fuel tanks at

gasoline service stations) comparability

demonstration that the New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted on

April 18, 2000. EPA is approving this

submittal into the New York State

Implementation Plan (SIP) because it

meets the requirements of section

184(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

II. What Are the CAA Requirements for

Stage II Comparability?

Historically, there has been a major

ozone nonattainment problem in the

northeastern United States. A significant

portion of the problem is the result of

regional transport of ozone and ozone

precursors (volatile organic compounds

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX)). To

address this problem of interstate

transport ozone air pollution, section

184 of the CAA specifically created the

Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which

includes the entire states of

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and

Vermont, and the District of Columbia

consolidated metropolitan statistical

area, which includes a portion of

Virginia.

The CAA established five

classifications of ozone nonattainment

areas. In ascending order of severity of

the air pollution problem, these are:

marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and

extreme. In addition, there are three

types of nonclassifiable ozone

nonattainment areas: submarginal,

transitional, and incomplete/no data.

The CAA requires specific control

requirements according to the

designation and classification of each

area.

Section 184 also provides for a

specific set of additional requirements

for the OTR designed to address the

regional transport problem. These

additional requirements include control

measures for attainment as well as

nonattainment areas. For the OTR, there

are two requirements related to Stage II

vehicle refueling controls. One is the

section 182(b)(3) requirement that all

moderate and above nonattainment

areas must adopt Stage II vehicle

refueling controls. The New York City

Metropolitan Area (including portions

of Orange County) is classified as a

severe ozone nonattainment area, and

therefore, it adopted Stage II vehicle

refueling controls, which were approved

by EPA on April 30, 1998 (63 FR 23665).

Pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the

CAA, moderate areas were released from

this requirement when EPA

promulgated onboard vapor recovery

rules.

The second OTR requirement is the

section 184(b)(2) requirement that all

areas in the OTR must adopt Stage II or

alternative measures capable of

achieving comparable emissions.

Because states that contain serious and

above nonattainment areas must

implement Stage II programs under

section 182(b)(3), those areas, even after

promulgation of the onboard

regulations, cannot take advantage of

the flexibility provided by section

184(b)(2) to adopt a comparable measure

instead.

Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA requires

that states in the OTR to adopt Stage II

or comparable measures within one year

of EPA completion of a study

identifying control measures capable of

achieving emissions reductions

comparable to the reductions achievable

through section 182(b)(3) Stage II

vehicle refueling controls. EPA

completed its study ‘‘Stage II

Comparability Study for the Northeast

Ozone Transport Region’’ (EPA–452/R–

94–011) on January 13, 1995. Therefore,

New York was required to either adopt

Stage II in areas outside the New York

City Metropolitan area or adopt

comparable regulations.

III. What Measures Are Included in

New York’s Stage II Comparability SIP?

To demonstrate that it has met the

CAA Stage II comparability

requirement, New York relies on NOX

controls in lieu of implementing the

control of VOCs at gasoline service

stations in the upstate portion of New

York State. These NOX reductions will

serve as comparable emission

reductions as defined in section

184(b)(2) of the CAA.

On September 27, 1994, the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC) agreed to

a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) committing the signatory states

to the development and implementation

of a region-wide NOX emission

reduction. The OTC MOU promotes

emission reductions at utility and large

industrial boilers for the purpose of

reducing ozone season NOX emissions

and further the effort to achieve the

federal health-based standards.

The OTC NOX MOU calls for states to

reduce NOX emissions from boilers and

indirect heat exchangers with heat

inputs greater than 250 million Btu per

hour. These reductions will be realized

in two phases, the first phase is

implemented in 1999 and the second in

2003.

In order to comply with the 1999

reductions of the OTC NOX MOU, New

York State adopted subpart 227–3

entitled the ‘‘Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions Budget and Allowance

Program’’ on March 5, 1999. EPA

approved subpart 227–3 as part of the

SIP on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 20905).

Subpart 227–3 implemented the 1999-

2002 NOX emission reductions by

establishing a statewide NOX Budget for

all fossil fuel fired boilers and indirect

heat exchangers with a maximum rated

heat input capacity of 250 million Btu

per hour or greater as well as emissions

from other fuel fired electric generating

sources with a rated output of 15

megawatts (MW) or greater.

IV. Are States Allowed To Use NOX

Emission Reductions as a Substitute for

Stage II VOC Emission Reductions?

Under EPA’s interpretation of section

184(b)(2), states have the option of

adopting comparable NOX control

measures instead of Stage II. EPA

provides the methodology for

determining what level of NOX emission

reductions is comparable to Stage II

VOC emissions reductions for a

particular area, and therefore, allowed

to be substituted. NOX may not be

substituted for VOC in areas where there

is a waiver under section 182(f) of the

CAA from some or all NOX

requirements because such a waiver

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58363

indicates that NOX reductions are either

in excess and not necessary for

attainment, or NOX reductions are

otherwise not beneficial. New York

State has not obtained any such waivers

under section 182(f).

V. What Is New York’s Stage II

Comparability Analysis?

New York State has adopted certain

NOX controls in lieu of implementing

the control of VOCs at gasoline service

stations in the upstate portion of New

York State. New York’s analysis relies

on the Interim Inventory projections

provided in the EPA Stage II

Comparability Study for the Northeast

Ozone Transport Region, January, 1995.

The EPA study projects for Stage II

vapor recovery VOC emission

reductions of 25 tons per day (tpd) for

the upstate portion of New York State.

The New York City Metropolitan Area is

classified as a severe ozone

nonattainment area, and therefore, it is

not eligible for inclusion in this

comparability analysis.

New York’s Phase II NOX budget and

allocation program established a statewide cap of 46,959 tons for the ozone

season (May 1–September 30). These

46,959 tons were allocated to the

affected sources through a negotiation

process involving representatives from

each affected facility. The 5-month

budget was divided by 153 days (total

number days in the ozone season) to

provide a ton per day (tpd) figure. After

removing the sources located in the

severe nonattainment area, the

aggregated creditable reduction for Stage

II substitution from remaining affected

sources equates to 81.6 tpd NOX.

EPA provides a NOX to VOC

substitution ratio in the percent of each

total inventory basis. Ratios for each

state in the OTR are presented in EPA’s

Stage II Comparability Study for the

Northeast Ozone Transport Region, table

5–1. The 81.6 tpd of NOX equates to 102

tpd VOC when using this substitution

ratio.

VI. Why Is EPA Approving New York’s

Stage II Comparability SIP Revision?

EPA has evaluated New York’s Stage

II comparability SIP revision and finds

it consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. EPA is

approving New York’s Stage II

comparability SIP revision because New

York has provided a substitute control

measure, Subpart 227–3, which

provides greater emission reductions

than Stage II and has successfully

demonstrated that the substitution of

Phase II NOX controls is a comparable

measure to Stage II control for the

upstate portion of New York State.

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is 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 November 28, 2000

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

October 30, 2000.

If the EPA receives adverse

comments, then EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. EPA will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’

B. 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.

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 SIP approval is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it

proposes approval of a state program

implementing a Federal standard, and it

is not economically significant under

Executive Order 12866.

C. 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. 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

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

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

58364 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 190 / Friday, September 29, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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, 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 CAA 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, EPA certifies

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

CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state

action. The CAA 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 final

approval action 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. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by November 28, 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: August 21, 2000.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

40 CFR Part 52 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 HH—New York

2. Section 52.1683 is amended by

adding new paragraph (g) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(g) EPA approves as a revision to the

New York State Implementation Plan,

the Stage II gasoline vapor recovery

comparability plan for upstate portions

of New York State submitted by the

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation on April

18, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–24789 Filed 9–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301052; FRL–6745–9]

RIN 2070–AB78

Flucarbazone-sodium; Time-Limited

Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for combined

residues of flucarbazone-sodium, 4,5-

dihydro-3-methoxy-4-methyl-5-oxo-N-

[[2(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] sulfonyl]-

1H-1,2,4-triazole 1-carboxamide,

sodium salt) and its N-desmethyl

metabolite in or on wheat, forage at 0.30

parts per million (ppm); wheat, grain at

0.01 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.10 ppm; and

wheat, straw at 0.05 ppm; and combined

residues of flucarbazone-sodium and its

metabolites converted to 2-

(trifluoromethoxy)benzene sulfonamide

and calculated as flucarbazone-sodium

in or on milk at 0.005 ppm; meat and

meat byproducts (excluding liver) of

cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep at

0.01 ppm; and liver of cattle, goats,

hogs, horses and sheep at 1.5 ppm.

Bayer Corporation requested these

tolerances under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.