Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1545

comment and delayed effective date

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

hereby certifies that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

as they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–602, since

this final rule does not contain any

substantive provisions. Therefore,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final

rule is exempt from the regulatory

flexibility analysis requirements of

§§ 603 and 604.

Approved: December 6, 1999.

Togo D. West, Jr.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, under 38 U.S.C. 501, 38 CFR

chapter 1 is amended as set forth below:

CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

1. In chapter I, revise all references to

‘‘Office of Counsel to the Chairman

(01C)’’ to read ‘‘Office of the Senior

Deputy Vice Chairman (012)’’.

[FR Doc. 00–606 Filed 1–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[085–1085b; FRL–6517–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a variety of

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for Kansas. These revisions

include revising and renumbering

regulatory definitions, streamlining

opacity requirements, expanding testing

of gasoline delivery vehicles, and

methods for calculating actual

emissions. These revisions enhance and

strengthen the SIP to promote

attainment and maintenance of

established air quality standards.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on March 13, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by February 10, 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: All comments should be

addressed to: Christopher D. Hess, U.S.

EPA Region VII, 901 North 5th Street,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101, or via e-mail

at hess.christopher@epamail.epa.gov.

Copies of the state submittal(s) are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas

City, Kansas 66101; and the

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher D. Hess, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 901 North 5th

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913)

551–7213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information regarding this action is

presented in the following order:

Why is EPA taking this action?

Who should be concerned with these

revisions?

How does EPA decide these revisions

are approvable?

‘‘Final Action.’’

Throughout this document, wherever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, that means

EPA.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

The state of Kansas maintains a SIP

that contains regulations, control

measures, and strategies to maintain

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS). Our process for approving

revisions to the SIP allows all interested

citizens, government agencies, and

regulated groups and individuals to

know precisely what is in the SIP. It

also allows us or the public to take

enforcement action to address violations

of the approved regulations.

Who Should Be Concerned With These

Revisions?

If you use the state of Kansas’

regulatory definitions, are concerned

with opacity requirements (especially in

Wyandotte County), operate a gasoline

delivery vehicle in Kansas City, or need

to know how to calculate actual

emissions, the revisions we are

approving may interest you. We are

providing a summary of each revision in

the next four sections.

A. Kansas Regulatory Definitions

K.A.R. 28–19–7 of the previously

approved SIP contained the primary

definitions for the Kansas air quality

regulations. This section is now

revoked. The definitions are now

included in K.A.R. 29–19–200, which is

a planned renumbering of the

regulations by the state. Furthermore,

the Federal lists of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and hazardous air

pollutants that were previously

contained in K.A.R. 28–19–7 are now

contained in K.A.R. 28–19–201. K.A.R.

28–19–16a, regarding new source permit

requirements for designated

nonattainment areas, is amended to

remove duplications of certain terms

previously contained in K.A.R. 28–19–

7 that now appear in K.A.R. 28–19–200.

The net effect is that the definitions

are now renumbered, free of

duplications, and the Federal lists are

now separated from the main body of

definitions so that changes generated by

Federal revisions can be made quickly

and without reprinting the entire

definitions section (e.g., the new K.A.R.

28–19–200) each time a Federal revision

is enacted.

B. Opacity

K.A.R. 28–19–50 of the previously

approved SIP contained the general

opacity regulations (‘‘opacity’’ is a term

that describes the percentage of visible

air emissions allowable from an

emissions unit). K.A.R. 28–19–52

contained the exceptions to the general

opacity requirements contained in

K.A.R. 28–19–50.

Both of the existing opacity

regulations are now revoked. Their

content is now incorporated into K.A.R.

28–19–650. This new, single regulation

also incorporates provisions for

Wyandotte County regarding opacity.

The net effect of these revisions is that

previous opacity requirements remain

in effect but are now contained in

renumbered regulations. Additionally,

by including the local rules from

Wyandotte County, the state rule is now

consistent with the local rule, which

was previously approved by EPA as part

of the SIP as a local, but not a state, rule.

C. Gasoline Delivery Vehicles in Kansas

City

K.A.R. 28–19–70 in the Kansas air

quality regulations establish controls on

emissions of VOCs from gasoline

delivery vehicles. The regulation is now

revised so that inspections of vehicles to

determine compliance is expanded from

two months to five months of each year.

This change will increase the ability of

Kansas to ensure that testing and

compliance demonstrations are

performed for gasoline delivery

vehicles.

D. Method for Determining Actual

Emissions

In regulation K.A.R. 28–19–20, the

state outlines various alternatives for

calculating actual emissions for owners

or operators of an emissions unit or

stationary source.

1546 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The regulation enables sources to

determine actual emissions using data

from continuous monitoring systems,

approved emissions factors, material

balances, or methods specified in an

issued permit. If a source is unable to

qualify for one of these methods, the

calculation will be performed using the

potential to emit of the emission unit or

stationary source.

E. Permit Applicability Limits

We are not acting on one portion of

the Kansas SIP submittal. The May 3,

1999, submittal contains a new

regulation, K.A.R. 28–19–564, which

provides an exemption from certain

major source permitting requirements

for sources which limit their emissions

to specified levels. During the state’s

rule adoption process, we commented

that the rule should be revised to define

more clearly the records that sources

must keep to demonstrate their emission

levels. In response, Kansas indicated

that it would make changes in the rule

to address EPA concerns at a later date.

EPA plans to propose action on K.A.R.

28–19–564 after the state has made

revisions and submitted them to EPA.

If you are interested in a technical

analysis of these revisions, please

request the technical support document

(TSD) from us. It is dated July 22, 1999,

and titled ‘‘Kansas SIP Revisions, 1999.’’

Please refer to the contact information

provided in the summary section of this

document to request the TSD.

How Does EPA Decide These Revisions

Are Approvable?

First, we participate with the state to

identify which portions of the SIP need

to be revised to, for example,

incorporate changes in Federal

regulations or strengthen measures used

to maintain the NAAQS. The state then

initiates a public consultation process

that allows anyone who is interested to

provide comments on proposed

regulations. Once these regulations are

adopted as final by the state, they are

submitted to us for Federal approval.

We then compare the state’s revised

regulations to established Federal

criteria to ensure those regulations meet

all Federal criteria. (Although we

participate early in the rule revision

process, the subsequent public review

process can occasionally mean the state

makes certain revisions to the proposed

regulations. So, we make sure that any

revisions still meet all applicable

criteria after the state regulations are

finalized).

The criteria we use are contained in

a variety of documents such as the

Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Code of

Federal Regulations. When a state’s

proposals fulfill Federal requirements,

we propose approval through this

Federal Register document.

As mentioned earlier, we have

conducted a rigorous technical analysis

of these revisions in our TSD, and

anyone who is interested can request

that document to examine these

revisions more closely.

In summary, we consider all of the

proposed revisions noncontroversial

and fully approvable. Each revision is

already an adopted requirement in

Kansas and, as such, has undergone

extensive public review and comment

process. Therefore, we are not imposing

any new requirements that are not

already in effect in the state of Kansas

or in Wyandotte County.

Final Action

EPA is approving revisions submitted

by the state of Kansas regarding the

topics outlined in this document.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determinations

or expressing any position with regard

to Kansas’ audit law (K.S.A. 60–3332, et

seq.), and this action does not express

or imply any viewpoint regarding any

legal deficiencies in this or any other

Federally authorized, delegated, or

approved program resulting from the

effect of Kansas’ audit law.

EPA is publishing this document

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

action will be effective March 13, 2000

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

February 10, 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. Parties

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective on March 13,

2000 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.

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

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.

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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 1547

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866, and it does not establish a

further health or risk-based standard

because it approves state rules which

implement a previously promulgated

health or safety-based standard.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal Government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to 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. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The 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, 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

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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 preexisting 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 United

States Senate, the United States House

of Representatives, and the United

States Comptroller General 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 March 13, 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: November 29, 1999.

Dennis Grams, P.E.,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

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 R—Kansas

2. In § 52.870 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by:

a. Removing entries ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–7’’

and ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–50’’;

b. Revising entries ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–

16a’’, ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–20’’ and ‘‘K.A.R.

28–19–70’’;

c. Adding in numerical order entries

‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–200’’ and ‘‘K.A.R. 28–

19–201’’ under the heading ‘‘General

Provisions’’; and

d. Adding in numerical order the

entry ‘‘K.A.R. 28–19–650’’ under the

heading ‘‘Open Burning Restrictions.’’

The revisions and additions read as

follows:

§ 52.870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) EPA-approved regulations.

1548 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS REGULATIONS

Kansas citation Title

State

effective

date

EPA approval date Explanations

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control

*******

Nonattainment Area Requirements

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–16a ............. Definitions ................................... 10/10/97 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548.

*******

Processing Operation Emissions

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–20 ............... Calculation of Actual Emissions 9/28/93 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548.

*******

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–70 ............... Leaks from Gasoline Delivery

Vessels and Vapor Collection

Systems.

5/15/98 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548.

*******

General Provisions

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–200 ............. General Provisions; definitions .. 10/10/97 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548 .................. New rule. Replaces K.A.R. 28–

19–7 definitions.

K.A.R. 28–19–201 ............. General Provisions; Regulated

Compounds List.

10/10/97 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548 .................. New rule. Replaces Regulated

Compounds in K.A.R.

28–19–7.

*******

Open Burning Restrictions

*******

K.A.R. 28–19–650 ............. Emissions Opacity Limits ........... 3/1/96 1/11/00, 65 FR 1548 .................. New rule. Replaces K.A.R. 28–

19–50 and 28–19–52.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–270 Filed 1–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 712 and 716

[

OPPTS–82050; FRL–5777–2]

RIN–2070–AB08 and 2070–AB11

Preliminary Assessment Information

and Health and Safety Data Reporting;

Addition and Removal of Certain

Chemicals and Removal of Stay

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule addresses the

recommendations of the 39th TSCA

Interagency Testing Committee (ITC)

Report by adding 19 of 23 recommended

nonylphenol ethoxylates to the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) section

8(a) Preliminary Assessment

Information Reporting (PAIR) rule. The

TSCA ITC in its 39th Report to EPA

revised the TSCA section 4(e) Priority

Testing List by recommending testing

for 23 nonylphenol ethoxylates, 19 of

which are associated with unique

Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)

Registry numbers. The ITC

recommendations are given priority

consideration by EPA in promulgating

TSCA section 4 test rules. This PAIR

rule will require manufacturers

(including importers) of the 19 CASnumbered substances identified in this

document to report certain production,

use, and exposure-related information to

EPA. This action also removes a stay for

TSCA section 8(a) PAIR and section 8(d)

Health and Safety Data Reporting rules

issued previously for 18 nonylphenol

ethoxylates recommended by the TSCA

ITC in its 38th Report to EPA and

removes those 18 chemicals from these

reporting rules.

DATES: This rule is effective on February

10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information contact: Joseph S.

Carra, Deputy Director, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone numbers: (202) 554–1404 and

TDD: (202) 554–0551; e-mail address:

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

For technical information contact:

David R. Williams, Chemical Control

Division (7405), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

numbers: (202) 260–8130; e-mail

address: ccd.citb@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: