64142 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

mixed with copper giving the objects a

slightly reddish appearance.

IV. Shell

Natural shell pierced for stringing in

necklaces.

Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed

Effective Date

Because the amendment to the

Customs Regulations contained in this

document imposing import restrictions

on the above-listed cultural property of

Nicaragua is being made in response to

a bilateral agreement entered into in

furtherance of the foreign affairs

interests of the United States, pursuant

to section 553(a)(1) of the

Administrative Procedure Act, (5 U.S.C.

553(a)(1)), no notice of proposed

rulemaking or public procedure is

necessary. For the same reason, a

delayed effective date is not required

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed

rulemaking is required, the provisions

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

Accordingly, this final rule is not

subject to the regulatory analysis or

other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and

604.

Executive Order 12866

This amendment does not meet the

criteria of a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as described in E.O. 12866.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Bill Conrad, Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service. However, personnel

from other offices participated in its

development.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12

Customs duties and inspections,

Imports, Cultural property.

Amendment to the Regulations

Accordingly, part 12 of the Customs

Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is

amended as set forth below:

PART 12—[AMENDED]

1. The general authority and specific

authority citations for part 12, in part,

continue to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202

(General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)),

1624;

* * * * *

Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also

issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;

* * * * *

§ 12.104g [Amended]

2. In § 12.104g, paragraph (a), the

table is amended by adding Nicaragua

in appropriate alphabetical order as

follows:

State Cultural property T.D. No.

*******

Nicaragua ................................................. Archaeological Material of pre-Columbian cultures ranging approximately from 8000 B.C. to 1500 A.D.T.D. 00–75

*******

* * * * *

Raymond W. Kelly,

Commissioner of Customs.

Approved: September 8, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–27593 Filed 10–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WI99–01–733a, FRL–6891–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions;

Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is approving a September

8, 2000, request from Wisconsin for a

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision of the Walworth County ozone

maintenance plan. The maintenance

plan revision establishes a new

transportation conformity Mobile

Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for

the year 2007. EPA is approving the

allocation of a portion of the safety

margin for Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC) to the area’s 2007 MVEB for

transportation conformity purposes.

This allocation will still maintain the

total emissions for the area at or below

the attainment level required by the

transportation conformity regulations.

The transportation conformity budget

for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) will remain

the same as previously approved in the

maintenance plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on

December 26, 2000, unless EPA receives

adverse written comments by November

27, 2000. If EPA receives adverse

comments, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal

Register and inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

You may inspect copies of the

documents relevant to this action during

normal business hours at the following

location: Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please contact

Michael Leslie at (312) 353–6680 before

visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Leslie, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

Who Is Affected by This Action?

How Did the State Support This Request?

What Is Transportation Conformity?

What Is an Emissions Budget?

What Is a Safety Margin?

How Does This Action Change the Walworth

County Ozone Maintenance Plan?

Why Is the Request Approvable?

EPA Action

Administrative Requirements

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving a revision to the

ozone maintenance plan for Walworth

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64143

County, Wisconsin. The revision will

change the MVEB for VOC that is used

for transportation conformity purposes.

The revision will keep the total

emissions for the area at or below the

attainment level required by law. This

action will allow State or local agencies

to maintain air quality while providing

for transportation growth.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

Primarily, this revision will affect the

transportation sector represented by

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional

Planning Commission, the Wisconsin

Department of Transportation and

persons needing to travel through

Walworth County. The conformity rule,

provides that if a ‘‘safety margin’’ exists

in the maintenance plan, then the safety

margin can be allocated to the

transportation sector via the mobile

source budget.

How Did the State Support This

Request?

On September 8, 2000, Wisconsin

submitted to EPA a SIP revision request

for the Walworth County ozone

maintenance area. The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) held a public hearing on this

proposal on August 15, 2000. No one

from the public commented on the

proposed revisions.

In the submittal, Wisconsin requested

to establish a new 2007 MVEB for VOC

for the Walworth County, Wisconsin,

ozone maintenance area. The State

requested that 0.5 tons per day of VOC

be allocated from the maintenance

plan’s safety margin. The MVEB are

used for transportation conformity

purposes.

What Is Transportation Conformity?

Transportation conformity means that

the level of emissions from the

transportation sector (cars, trucks and

buses) must be consistent with the

requirements in the SIP to attain and

maintain the air quality standards. The

Clean Air Act, in section 176(c),

requires conformity of transportation

plans, programs and projects to an

implementation plan’s purpose of

attaining and maintaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. On

November 24, 1993, EPA published a

final rule establishing criteria and

procedures for determining whether

transportation plans, programs and

projects funded or approved under Title

23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

conform to the SIP.

The transportation conformity rules

require an ozone maintenance area,

such as Walworth County, to compare

the actual projected emissions from

cars, trucks and buses on the highway

network, to the MVEB established by a

maintenance plan. The Walworth

County area has an approved ozone

maintenance plan. Our approval of the

maintenance plan established the MVEB

for transportation conformity purposes.

What Is an Emissions Budget?

An emissions budget is the projected

level of controlled emissions from the

transportation sector (mobile sources)

that is estimated in the SIP. The SIP

controls emissions through regulations,

for example, on fuels and exhaust levels

for cars. The emissions budget concept

is further explained in the preamble to

the November 24, 1993, transportation

conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The

preamble also describes how to

establish the MVEB in the SIP and how

to revise the emissions budget. The

transportation conformity rule allows

changing the MVEB as long as the total

level of emissions from all sources

remains below the attainment level.

What Is a Safety Margin?

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference

between the attainment level of

emissions (from all sources) and the

projected level of emissions (from all

sources) in the maintenance plan. The

attainment level of emissions is the

level of emissions during one of the

years in which the area met the air

quality health standard. For example:

Walworth County was monitoring

attainment of the one hour ozone

standard during the 1992–1994 time

period. The State used 1993 as the

attainment level of emissions for

Walworth County. The emissions from

point, area and mobile sources in 1993

equaled 18.77 tons per day of VOC and

12.88 tons per day of NOX. The

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) projected emissions

out to the year 2007 and projected a

total of 17.16 tons per day of VOC and

11.49 tons per day of NOX from all

sources in Walworth County. The safety

margin for Walworth County is the

difference between these amounts, or

1.61 tons per day of VOC and 1.39 tons

per day of NOX. Tables 1 and 2 give

detailed information on the estimated

emissions from each source category

and the safety margin calculation.

The 2007 emission projections reflect

the point, area and mobile source

reductions and are illustrated in Tables

1 and 2.

TABLE 1.—WALWORTH COUNTY VOC

EMISSIONS BUDGET

Source category 1993 2007

Point ...................... 1.55 1.79

Area ...................... 7.63 7.37

On-Road Mobile ... 5.53 4.89

Non-Road Mobile .. 4.06 3.11

Total ............... 18.77 17.16

Safety Margin = 1993 total emissions

¥2007 total emissions = 1.61 tons/day

VOC

TABLE 2.—WALWORTH COUNTY NOX

EMISSIONS BUDGET

Source category 1993 2007

Point ...................... 0.55 0.64

Area ...................... 0.73 0.66

On-Road Mobile ... 7.86 7.20

Non-Road Mobile .. 3.74 2.99

Total ............... 12.88 11.49

Safety Margin = 1990 total emissions

¥2007 total emissions = 1.39 tons/day

NOx

The emissions are projected to

maintain the area’s air quality consistent

with the air quality health standard.

Wisconsin requests that only a portion

of the safety margin credit be allocated

to the transportation sector. The total

emission level, even with this allocation

will be below the attainment level or

safety level and thus is acceptable.

How Does This Action Change the

Walworth County Ozone Maintenance

Plan?

It raises the VOC emissions for the

MVEB. The maintenance plan is

designed to provide for future growth

while still maintaining the ozone air

quality standard. Growth in industries,

population, and traffic is offset with

reductions from cleaner cars and other

emission reduction programs. Through

the maintenance plan the State and

local agencies can manage and maintain

air quality while providing for growth.

In the submittal, Wisconsin requested

to allocate part of the area’s safety

margin to the MVEB. The Walworth

County area’s safety margin is the

difference between the 1993 attainment

inventory year and the 2007 projected

emissions inventory (1.61 tons/day VOC

safety margin, and 1.39 tons/day NOX

safety margin) as shown in Tables 1 and

2. The SIP revision requests the

allocation of 0.5 tons/day VOC into the

area’s MVEB from the safety margin.

The 2007 VOC MVEB budget showing

the safety margin allocations that will be

64144 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

used for transportation conformity

purposes is outlined in Table 3.

Table 3 below illustrates that the

requested portion of the safety margin

can be allocated to the 2007 mobile

source budget and that total emissions

will still remain at or below the 1993

attainment level of total emissions for

the Walworth County maintenance area.

Since the area would still be at or below

the 1993 attainment level for the total

emissions, the conformity rule allows

this allocation. The NOX budget and

safety margin will remain the same.

TABLE 3.—ALLOCATION OF SAFETY

MARGIN TO THE 2007 MVEB,

WALWORTH COUNTY VOC EMISSIONS

[tons/day]

Source category 2007

Point ............................................ 1.79

Area ............................................ 7.37

On-Road Mobile ......................... 5.39

Non-Road Mobile ........................ 3.11

Total ..................................... 17.66

Remaining Safety Margin =1990 total

emissions¥2007 total emissions = 1.11

tons/day VOC

Why Is the Request Approvable?

The requested allocation of the safety

margin for the Walworth County area is

approvable because the new MVEB for

VOC maintains the total emissions for

the area at or below the attainment year

inventory level as required by the

transportation conformity regulations.

The conformity rule allows this

allocation because the area would still

be at or below the 1993 attainment level

for the total emissions.

EPA Action

EPA is approving the requested

allocation of the safety margin to the

VOC MVEB for the Walworth County

ozone maintenance area.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal, because EPA views this

as a noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse written comments be

filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless EPA

receives relevant adverse written

comments by November 27, 2000.

Should the Agency receive such

comment, we will publish a final rule

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If we do not

receive comments, this action will be

effective on December 26, 2000.

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 Orders on Federalism

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a state, local, or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments. If

the mandate is unfunded, EPA must

provide to the Office of Management

and Budget a description of the extent

of EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected state, local,

and tribal governments, the nature of

their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected officials and

other representatives of state, local, and

tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’ Today’s rule does not create

a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton

issued a new executive order on

federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255 (August 10, 1999)), which will

take effect on November 2, 1999. In the

interim, the current Executive Order

12612 (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)

on federalism still applies. This rule

will not have a substantial direct effect

on 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 12612. The rule affects

only one State, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act.

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

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 208 / Thursday, October 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64145

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by December 26,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Ozone,

Volatile Organic Compound,

Transportation conformity.

Dated: October 11, 2000.

Norman Niedergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart YY—Wisconsin

2. Section 52.2585 is amended by

adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:

§ 52.2585 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(n) Approval—On September 8, 2000,

Wisconsin submitted a revision to the

ozone maintenance plan for the

Walworth County area. The revision

consists of allocating a portion of the

Walworth County area’s Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOC) safety

margin to the transportation conformity

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

(MVEB). The MVEB for transportation

conformity purposes for the Walworth

County area are now: 5.39 tons per day

of VOC emissions and 7.20 tons per day

of oxides of nitrogen emissions for the

year 2007. This approval only changes

the VOC transportation conformity

MVEB for Walworth County.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–27399 Filed 10–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 110–1110; FRL–6889–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an

amendment to the Missouri State

Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to

a new statewide visible emissions rule,

and the rescission of four, old area

specific visible emission rules. The new

statewide rule consolidates the

requirements of the four old area

specific rules. The effect of this

approval is to ensure Federal

enforceability of the state air program

rules and to maintain consistency

between the state-adopted rules and the

approved SIP.

DATES: This rule is effective on

December 26, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

written comment by November 27,

2000. If EPA receives such comments, it

will publish a timely withdrawal of the