Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59727

TABLE 3.—PROHIBITED ACTS AND DISCIPLINARY SEVERITY SCALE—Continued

Code Prohibited acts Sanctions

*******

297 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., circumventing

telephone monitoring procedures, possession and/or use of another inmate’s

PIN number; third-party calling; third-party billing; using credit card numbers to

place telephone calls, conference calling; talking in code).

*******

MODERATE CATEGORY

*******

332 .................... Smoking where prohibited.

*******

397 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., conference calling, possession and/or use of another inmate’s PIN number, three-way calling,

providing false information for preparation of a telephone list).

*******

LOW MODERATE CATEGORY

*******

403 .................... (Not to be used).

*******

406 .................... Unauthorized use of mail (Restriction, or loss for a specific period of time, of these

privileges may often be an appropriate sanction G) (May be categorized and

charged in terms of greater severity, according to the nature of the unauthorized

use; e.g., the mail is used for planning, facilitating, committing an armed assault

on the institution’s secure perimeter, would be charged as a Code 101 Assault).

*******

497 .................... Use of the telephone for abuses other than criminal activity (e.g., exceeding the

15-minute time limit for telephone calls; using the telephone in an unauthorized

area; placing of an unauthorized individual on the telephone list).

*******

[FR Doc. 00–25729 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA088–5051a; FRL–6880–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Revised 15% Plan for Northern Virginia

Portion of the Metropolitan

Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is converting its

conditional interim approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia (the ‘‘Commonwealth’’) to a full

approval. This revision satisfies the 15

percent rate of progress (ROP) plan (the

15% plan) requirements of the Clean Air

Act (the Act) for the Northern Virginia

portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

DC ozone nonattainment area (the

Washington area). The intended effect of

this action is to convert the conditional

interim approval to a full approval

because the Commonwealth has

fulfilled the conditions listed in EPA’s

conditional interim approval of the

original 15% plan for the Northern

Virginia portion of the Washington area.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on November 20, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by November 6, 2000. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency—Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at:

Air Protection Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103;

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460; and

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, 629 East Main Street,

Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

Persons interested in examining these

documents should schedule an

appointment with the contact person

(listed below) at least 24 hours before

the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Lewis, (215) 814–2185, at the

59728 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA Region III address above, or by

e-mail at lewis.janice@epa.gov. Please

note that while questions may be

submitted via e-mail, any comments on

the rulemaking action must be

submitted, in writing, to the address

listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 14, 1998, the Virginia

Department of the Environmental

Quality (DEQ) submitted a revision to

its SIP for the Washington area. The

revision consists of an amended plan to

achieve a 15% reduction from 1990 base

year levels in volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions. On June

24, 1997 (62 FR 33999), EPA granted

conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s original 15% plan for the

Northern Virginia portion of the

Washington area. Virginia’s revisions to

its 15% plan were made to satisfy the

conditions imposed by EPA in the June

24, 1997 conditional interim approval.

The interim part of the June 24, 1997 (62

FR 33999) conditional interim approval

was related to the implementation of

Virginia’s Enhanced I/M program. On

September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47670), EPA

published a direct final rule converting

its May 15, 1997 (62 FR 26745) final

conditional interim approval of the

Virginia Enhanced I/M program to a full

approval, thus removing the interim

status. This was done because EPA

determined that all of the conditions of

its May 15, 1997 conditional interim

approval of the Enhanced I/M SIP had

been satisfied by the Commonwealth.

The Metropolitan Washington D.C.

ozone nonattainment area consists of

the District of Columbia, five counties in

Maryland, and in Northern Virginia, the

counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun,

Prince William and Stafford and the

cities of Alexandria, Falls Church,

Manassas, Manassas Park and Fairfax.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, State

of Maryland and the District of

Columbia in conjunction with

municipal planning organizations

collaborated on a coordinated 15% plan

for the entire Washington area (regional

15% plan). This was done under the

auspices of the regional air quality

planning committee, the Metropolitan

Washington Air Quality Committee

(MWAQC), and with the assistance of

the local municipal planning

organization, the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments

(MWCOG), to ensure coordination of air

quality and transportation planning.

Although the plan was developed by a

regional approach, each jurisdiction is

required to submit the 15% plan to EPA

for approval as a revision to its SIP.

Because the reasonable further progress

requirements such as the 15% plan

affect transportation improvement

plans, municipal planning organizations

have historically been heavily involved

in air quality planning in the

Washington area.

As explained in further detail below,

the regional 15% plan determined the

regional target level, regional

projections of growth and finally the

total amount of creditable reductions

required to meet the 15% reasonable

further progress requirement for the

entire Washington area. Maryland,

Virginia and the District agreed to

apportion this total amount of required

creditable reductions among the three

jurisdictions. EPA is taking action today

only on Virginia’s revised 15% plan

submittal for the Washington area,

having already granted full approvals of

both the District’s and Maryland’s 15%

plans for their portions of the

Washington area on August 5, 1999 (64

FR 42600) and July 19, 2000 (65 FR

44686), respectively. This rulemaking is

being taken to convert the June 24, 1997

conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s 15% plan for the Washington

area to a full approval based upon EPA’s

determination that the Commonwealth

has fulfilled the conditions imposed in

that conditional interim approval.

A. Base Year Emission Inventory

The baseline from which states must

determine the required reductions for

15% planning is the 1990 base year

emission inventory. The inventory is

broken down into several emissions

source categories: stationary point, area,

on-road mobile sources, and off-road

mobile sources. The base year inventory

includes emissions of all sources within

the nonattainment area and certain large

point sources within twenty-five miles

of the boundary. A subset of the 1990

base year inventory is the 1990 rate-ofprogress (ROP) inventory which

includes only anthropogenic (manmade) emissions actually within the

nonattainment area boundaries. EPA

approved this base year inventory SIP

revision for the entire Washington area

on July 8, 1998 (63 FR 36854).

B. Growth in Emissions Between 1990

and 1996

EPA has interpreted the Act to require

that reasonable further progress towards

attainment of the ozone standard must

be obtained after offsetting any growth

expected to occur over that period.

Therefore, to meet the 15% reasonable

further progress requirement, a state

must enact measures achieving

sufficient emissions reductions to offset

projected growth in VOC emissions, in

addition to a 15% reduction of VOC

emissions. A detailed description of the

growth methodologies used by the

Commonwealth is provided in EPA’s

conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s 15% plan (62 FR 33999, June

24, 1997) and in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) prepared for that

action.

The one area of concern relating to

growth projections in the original 15%

plan was related to the point source

inventory. Condition 1 of the June 24,

1997 (62 FR 33999) conditional interim

approval required that Virginia revise its

plan to properly account for growth in

point sources between 1990 and 1996.

EPA’s analysis of the revised 15% plan

supports removal of this condition,

since Virginia used the appropriate

methodology in reappraising its point

source inventory growth between 1990

and 1996. EPA here notes that the

revised 15% plan has a point source

inventory number that differs from

Virginia’s SIP approved inventory—8.1

tons per day (tpd) in the revised 15%

plan submittal versus 8.3 tpd in the

approved inventory. EPA is not revising

the SIP approved inventory by this

action. The 8.1 tpd number is acceptable

for use in the revised 15% plan, as the

discrepancy serves to lower the 15%

plan’s target level, thus making the

plan’s VOC reductions more restrictive

than required if one were to use the

approved inventory numbers. EPA is

approving the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s 1990–1996 emissions growth

projections in its revised 15% plan.

C. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance (I/M) Program

Condition 2 of EPA’s conditional

interim approval of the original 15%

plan required the Commonwealth to

meet the conditions EPA imposed in its

May 15, 1997 conditional interim

approval of Virginia’s enhanced motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program. Virginia was also

required to remodel the I/M benefits

claimed in the 15% plan using the

following two EPA guidance

memoranda: Date by which States Need

to Achieve all the Reductions Needed

for the 15 Percent Plan from I/M and

Guidance for Recalculation, from John

Seitz and Margo Oge dated August 13,

1996, and Modeling 15% VOC

Reductions from

I/M in 1999—Supplemental Guidance,

from Gay MacGregor and Sally Shaver

dated December 23, 1996.

The Commonwealth has remedied

condition 2 imposed in the conditional

interim approval of its original 15%

plan. On September 1, 1999 (64 FR

47670), EPA published a direct final

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59729

rule converting its May 15, 1997 (62 FR

26745) final conditional interim

approval of the Virginia enhanced I/M

SIP revision to a full approval. This was

done because EPA determined that all of

the conditions of the May 15, 1997

conditional interim approval of the

enhanced I/M SIP had been satisfied by

the Commonwealth. Further, EPA has

determined that Virginia appropriately

remodeled the I/M benefits of the

program, and that there are no adverse

affects on the 15% plan due to this

remodeling.

D. Target Level Emissions/Emission

Reductions Needs

As part of the conditional interim

approval of its original 15% plan,

Virginia was also required to remodel to

determine affirmatively the creditable

reductions from reformulated gasoline

(RFG) and the Tier 1 Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) in

accordance with EPA guidance. Virginia

was required to remodel the benefits of

enhanced I/M, RFG and Tier 1 under the

revised plan to compare the mobile

source target level in 1999 versus the

target level for mobile sources which

was determined for the original plan.

EPA concurs with the remodeling

demonstration submitted as part of the

revised 15% plan, and with the revised

mobile source target level calculation.

Virginia’s portion of the corrected target

level is 163.8 tpd.

The regional 15% plan calculates a

target level of emissions to meet the

15% reasonable further progress

requirement over the entire

nonattainment area. The regional 15%

plan contains a projection of emissions

growth from 1990 to 1996 and, in effect,

apportions among Virginia, Maryland

and the District of Columbia (the three

jurisdictions) the amount of creditable

emission reductions that each

jurisdiction must achieve in order for

the entire nonattainment area to achieve

a 15% reduction in VOC emissions net

of growth. Each jurisdiction then

adopted the regional plan, which

identified the amount of creditable

emission reductions which that

jurisdiction must achieve for the

regional plan to get a 15% reduction

accounting for any growth. The regional

plan calculated the ‘‘target level’’ of

1996 VOC emissions, in accordance

with applicable EPA guidance.

EPA has interpreted section 182(b) of

the Act to require that the base year

VOC emission inventory be adjusted to

account for reductions in VOC

emissions that would have occurred

from the pre-1990 FMVCP and Reed

Vapor Pressure (RVP) programs. To

meet EPA’s applicable guidance on this

requirement, the regional plan contains

a calculation of the reductions occurring

between 1990 and 1996 from the pre1990 Tier 0 FMVCP and RVP programs

and the result of subtracting these

reductions from the 1990 ROP

inventory. The net result of this

calculation yielded the ‘‘1990 base year

inventory adjusted to 1996’’.

Virginia’s 15% plan relies upon

reductions from its revised enhanced I/

M program to achieve the required 15%

level as soon after November 15, 1996

as practicable, but not later than 1999.

Under EPA’s applicable guidance for

15% plans that rely upon reductions

from enhanced I/M after 1996, the target

level must also take into account the

effects of the pre-1990 Tier 0 FMVCP on

1990 emissions due to turnover in

vehicles between 1996 and 1999.

Therefore, to meet EPA’s applicable

guidance for this requirement, Virginia’s

15% plan contains a calculation of the

non-creditable reductions from the pre1990 Tier 0 FMVCP and RVP programs

between 1990 and 1999 and the result

of subtracting these reductions from the

1990 ROP inventory. The result of this

calculation yielded the ‘‘1990 base year

inventory adjusted to 1999.’’ Virginia’s

15% plan clearly identifies the

difference between the ‘‘1990 base year

inventory adjusted to 1996’’ and ‘‘1990

base year inventory adjusted to 1999’’ as

the ‘‘fleet turnover correction’’ (FTC)

necessary to meet EPA’s guidance.

In its plan, Virginia calculates a

‘‘base’’ 1996 VOC target level as 85% of

the ‘‘1990 adjusted base year inventory

for 1996.’’ In accordance with EPA’s

guidance, as discussed above, Virginia

subtracts the FTC from the ‘‘base’’ 1996

VOC target level to yield a ‘‘final’’ 1996

VOC target level for the 15% plan. In

Table 1 below, we have provided a

summary of the calculations for the

1996 VOC target level for the entire

Washington area.

TABLE 1.—REQUIRED REDUCTIONS FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, DC NONATTAINMENT AREA 15% PLAN

[Tons per day]

Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area target level calculation

Item District of

Columbia Maryland Virginia

Washington

D.C. Area

Totals

1 1990 ROP Inventory ........................................................................................... 60.3 241.7 226.5 528.5

2 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory adjusted to 1996 ....................................... 51.2 215.1 196.8 463.1

3 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory adjusted to 1999 ....................................... 49.9 210.9 193.3 454.1

4 FTC Adjustment (Line 2 minus Line 3) ............................................................... 1.3 4.2 3.5 9.0

5 Base 1996 target Level = 85% of Line 2 (0.85 × Line 2) ................................... 43.5 182.8 167.3 393.6

6 Final 1996 Regional Target Level (Line 5 minus Line 4) ................................... 42.2 178.6 163.8 384.6

7 Projected 1996 Uncontrolled Emissions ............................................................. 48.5 234.7 219.4 502.4

8 Required Regional Emission Reductions (Line 8 minus Line 7)* ...................... .................... .................... .................... 117.8

9 Apportioned State Emission Reductions* ........................................................... 8.5 57.5 51.8 117.8

*The small discrepancy between values is due to rounding the apportioned emission reductions to the nearest tenth.

The emission reductions required to

meet the 15% reasonable further

progress requirement equals the

difference between the projected 1996

emissions under the current control

strategy (the 1996 uncontrolled

emissions) and the target level. This

amount of emission reductions reflects

a 15% reduction from the adjusted base

year inventory and any reductions

necessary to offset emissions growth

projected to occur between 1990 and

1996. The Washington area’s regional

VOC target level is 384.6 tpd. EPA has

determined that this regional target level

and the emission reduction needed for

the Washington area have been properly

calculated in accordance with EPA

guidance.

The three Washington area

jurisdictions agreed to apportion the

amount of emission reductions needed

for the entire area to achieve the 15%

reduction among themselves. This

59730 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

apportionment is also shown in Table 1

above. Virginia’s share is 51.8 tpd.

E. Reasonable Further Progress

The final condition for full approval

of the 15% plan was for Virginia to

demonstrate, using appropriate

documentation methodologies and

credit calculations, that it had satisfied

the 15% plan requirement for the

Washington area. As part of the revised

15% plan, recalculations to the

inventory, target level and 15%

reduction amounts were adjusted.

Under the new plan, Virginia’s portion

of the 15% plan requirement decreased

from 54.5 tpd to 51.8 tpd.

EPA agrees with the credit calculation

methodology used in the revised plan to

justify this number. As demonstrated in

Chapter 5 of the revised plan SIP

submittal, appropriate assumptions and

calculation methodologies were

employed, as per EPA guidance, in

calculating the new figures. EPA

therefore concurs that Virginia must

achieve at least 51.8 tpd in creditable

emission reductions to demonstrate that

Virginia has met its 15% VOC reduction

requirement for the Washington, DC

area.

EPA believes that in its revised 15%

plan the Commonwealth has made all

the necessary corrections to establish

the creditability of sufficient control

measures to met the 15% VOC

reduction requirement. Virginia has

demonstrated there are sufficient

creditable measures in the revised 15%

plan to achieve at least 54.85 tpd of

reductions. This 54.85 tpd reduction

results from either rules promulgated by

EPA or measures contained in the

approved Virginia SIP. Table 2 below

summarizes the creditable measures

from Virginia’s 15% plan for the

Washington area.

TABLE 2.—CREDITABLE VOC REDUCTIONS IN VIRGINIA’S 15% PLAN FOR

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON,

DC NONATTAINMENT AREA

[Tons per day]

Creditable reductions

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance ........................................ 19.50

Tier 1 FMVCP ............................... 6.10

Landfill Controls ............................ 0.27

Stage II Recovery Nozzles ........... 6.80

Reformulated Gasoline (on/off

road) .......................................... 9.10

Auto Refinishing ........................... 2.51

AIM—Reformulated Surface Coating ............................................. 5.30

Reformulated Consumer/Commercial Products ............................. 1.80

Stage I Enhancement ................... 0.30

VOC RACT > 50 tpy Sources ...... 0.40

TABLE 2.—CREDITABLE VOC REDUCTIONS IN VIRGINIA’S 15% PLAN FOR

THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON,

DC NONATTAINMENT AREA—Continued

[Tons per day]

Creditable reductions

Point Sources Controls > 25 tpy

Sources ..................................... 0.03

Seasonal Open Burning Ban ........ 2.60

Total Fully Creditable Reductions ................................... 54.85

F. Transportation Conformity Budgets

As is the case with any ROP plan,

Virginia’s 15% plan for the Washington,

DC area contains a mobile budget for

VOC emissions. By approving Virginia’s

15% plan, EPA is granting a de facto

approval of the budget in this plan.

However, EPA wishes to clarify that the

budget in Virginia’s 15% plan will not

be the applicable budget for any future

conformity determinations because

there are mobile budgets for both VOC

and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that have

been found adequate for the

Washington, DC area that apply in 1999

and all subsequent years. To verify

which budgets apply in the Washington,

DC area, please contact the EPA

Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES

section or consult EPA’s ‘‘Adequacy

Review of SIP Submissions for

Conformity’’ web page at http://

www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/

adequacy.htm.

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that Virginia’s revised 15%

plan SIP revision meets the

requirements of the Act and applicable

EPA guidance. EPA is therefore

converting its conditional interim

approval of Virginia’s 15% plan to a full

approval.

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation

that provides, subject to certain

conditions, for an environmental

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’’ for

voluntary compliance evaluations

performed by a regulated entity. The

legislation further addresses the relative

burden of proof for parties either

asserting the privilege or seeking

disclosure of documents for which the

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s

legislation also provides, subject to

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver

for violations of environmental laws

when a regulated entity discovers such

violations pursuant to a voluntary

compliance evaluation and voluntarily

discloses such violations to the

Commonwealth and takes prompt and

appropriate measures to remedy the

violations.

Virginia’s Voluntary Environmental

Assessment Privilege law, Va. Code Sec.

10.1–1198, provides a privilege that

protects from disclosure documents and

information about the content of those

documents that are the product of a

voluntary environmental assessment.

The privilege does not extend to

documents or information that are: (1)

Generated or developed before the

commencement of a voluntary

environmental assessment; (2) that are

prepared independently of the

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate

a clear, imminent and substantial

danger to the public health or

environment; or (4) that are required by

law.

On January 12, 1997, the

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the

Attorney General provided a legal

opinion that states that the Privilege law

precludes granting a privilege to

documents and information ‘‘required

by law,’’ including documents and

information ‘‘required by federal law to

maintain program delegation,

authorization or approval,’’ since

Virginia must ‘‘enforce federally

authorized environmental programs in a

manner that is no less stringent than

their federal counterparts. * * * ’’

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec.

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent

consistent with requirements imposed

by Federal law,’’ any person making a

voluntary disclosure of information to a

state agency regarding a violation of an

environmental statute, regulation,

permit, or administrative order is

granted immunity from administrative

or civil penalty.

The Attorney General’s January 12,

1997 opinion states that the quoted

language renders this statute

inapplicable to enforcement of any

federally authorized programs, since

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from

administrative, civil, or criminal

penalties because granting such

immunity would not be consistent with

federal law, which is one of the criteria

for immunity.’’ Thus, EPA has

determined that Virginia’s Privilege and

Immunity statutes will not preclude the

Commonwealth from enforcing its

program consistent with the federal

requirements.

EPA is converting its conditional

interim approval of Virginia’s 15% plan

to a full approval by this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 59731

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to convert the conditional

interim approval to a full approval

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This rule will be effective

November 20, 2000 without further

notice unless the Agency receives

adverse comments by November 6,

2000. If EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on the

proposed rule. Parties interested in

commenting on this action converting

the conditional approval of the

Commonwealth’s 15% plan to a full

approval should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this rule will be effective

on November 20, 2000 and no further

action will be taken on the proposed

rule.

II. Final Action

EPA is converting its conditional

interim approval of Virginia’s 15% plan

for its portion of the Metropolitan

Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

area to a full approval based upon the

evaluation of the SIP revision submittal

made by Virginia on April 14, 1998

consisting of the revised 15% plan for

its portion of the Metropolitan

Washington, DC ozone nonattainment

area.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.).

Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998).

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.

This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has

taken the necessary steps to eliminate

drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct.

EPA has complied with Executive

Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15,

1988) by examining the takings

implications of the rule in accordance

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s

Supplemental Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order.

This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. 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).

C. 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 20,

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 converting EPA’s

conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s 15% plan for Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment

area to a full approval 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,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 25, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 of chapter I, title 40

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 VV—Virginia

2. Section 52.2428 is amended by

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b)

to read as follows:

§ 52.2428 Control strategy: Carbon

monoxide and ozone.

(a) * * *

(b) EPA approves the

Commonwealth’s 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plan for the Virginia portion of

the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

ozone nonattainment area, submitted by

59732 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the Acting Director of the Virginia

Department of the Environmental

Quality on April 14, 1998.

§ 52.2450 [Amended]

3. Section 52.2450 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (e).

[FR Doc. 00–25470 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 132

[FRL–6881–9]

Identification of Approved and

Disapproved Elements of the Great

Lakes Guidance Submission From the

State of New York, and Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA published the final

Water Quality Guidance for the Great

Lakes System (the Guidance) on March

23, 1995. Section 118(c) of the Clean

Water Act (CWA) requires the Great

Lakes States of Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to adopt

within two years of publication of the

final Guidance (i.e., March 23, 1997)

minimum water quality standards,

antidegradation policies and

implementation procedures that are

consistent with the Guidance, and to

submit them to EPA for review and

approval. Each of the Great Lakes States

made those submissions.

Today, EPA is taking final action on

the Guidance submission of the State of

New York. EPA’s final action consists of

approving those elements of the State’s

submission that are consistent with the

Guidance, disapproving those elements

that are not consistent with the

Guidance, and specifying in a final rule

the elements of the Guidance that apply

in the portion of New York State within

the Great Lakes System where the State

either failed to adopt required elements

or adopted elements that are

inconsistent with the Guidance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for EPA’s

final actions with respect to the

Guidance submission of the State of

New York is available for inspection

and copying at U.S. EPA Region 2, 290

Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007 by

appointment only. Appointments may

be made by calling Wayne Jackson

(telephone 212–637–3807).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Morris (4301), U.S. EPA, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460

(202–260–0312); or Wayne Jackson, U.S.

EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New

York, N.Y. 10007 (212–637–3807).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

A. Potentially Affected Entities

Entities potentially affected by today’s

action are those discharging pollutants

to waters of the United States in the

Great Lakes System in the State of New

York. Potentially affected categories and

entities include:

Category Examples of Potentially

Affected Entities

Industry .......... Industries discharging to waters within the Great Lakes

System as defined in 40

CFR 132.2 in New York

State.

Municipalities Publicly-owned treatment

works discharging to waters within the Great Lakes

System as defined in 40

CFR 132.2. in New York

State.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding regulated entities

likely to be affected by these final

actions. This table lists the types of

regulated entities that EPA believes

could be affected by this action. Other

types of entities not listed in the table

could also be affected. To determine

whether your facility may be affected by

this final action, you should examine

the definition of ‘‘Great Lakes System’’

in 40 CFR 132.2 and examine 40 CFR

132.2 which describes the part 132

regulations. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Background

On March 23, 1995, EPA published

the Guidance. See 60 FR 15366; 40 CFR

part 132. The Guidance establishes

minimum water quality standards,

antidegradation policies, and

implementation procedures for the

waters of the Great Lakes System in the

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

Minnesota, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Specifically, the Guidance specifies

numeric criteria for selected pollutants

to protect aquatic life, wildlife and

human health within the Great Lakes

System and provides methodologies to

derive numeric criteria for additional

pollutants discharged to these waters.

The Guidance also contains minimum

implementation procedures and an

antidegradation policy.

Soon after being published, the

Guidance was challenged in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit. On June 6, 1997, the

Court issued a decision upholding

virtually all of the provisions contained

in the 1995 Guidance. American Iron

and Steel Institute, et al. v. EPA (AISI),

115 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The Court

vacated the human health criterion for

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and

the acute aquatic life criterion for

selenium, and the provisions of the

Guidance ‘‘insofar as it would eliminate

mixing zones for (bioaccumulative

chemicals of concern (BCCs)) and

impose (water quality-based effluent

limitations (WQBELs)) upon internal

facility waste streams.’’ 115 F.3d at 985.

On October 9, 1997, EPA published a

document revoking the PCB human

health criteria pursuant to the Court’s

decision. 62 FR 52922. On April 23,

1998, EPA published a second notice

amending the 1995 Guidance to remove

the BCC mixing zone provisions from 40

CFR part 132 (found in procedure 3.C.

of appendix F) and to remove language

in the Pollutant Minimization Program

provisions (procedure 8.D. of appendix

F) that might imply that permitting

authorities are required to impose

WQBELs on internal waste streams or to

specify control measures to meet

WQBELs. 63 FR 20107. On June 2, 2000,

EPA published a third document

withdrawing the acute criteria for

selenium. 65 FR 35283.

40 CFR 132.4 requires the Great Lakes

States to adopt water quality standards,

antidegradation policies, and

implementation procedures for waters

within the Great Lakes System

consistent with the Guidance or be

subject to EPA promulgation. 40 CFR

132.5(d) provides that, where a State

makes no submission to EPA, the

Guidance shall apply to discharges to

waters in that State upon EPA’s

publication of a final rule indicating the

effective date of the part 132

requirements in that jurisdiction.

On July 1, 1997, the National Wildlife

Federation filed suit alleging that EPA

had a non-discretionary duty to

promulgate the Guidance for any State

that failed to adopt standards, policies

and procedures consistent with the

Guidance. National Wildlife Federation

v. Browner, Civ. No. 97–1504–HHK

(D.D.C.). EPA negotiated a consent

decree providing that the EPA

Administrator must sign, by February

27, 1998, a Federal Register document

making part 132 effective in any State in