64352 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

which event [Air Force unit, activity, or

recruiting office nearest place of trial] will be

notified.

[Signature Element]

Janet A. Long,

Air Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–27520 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–05–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–00–243]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Hutchinson River, Eastchester Creek,

NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation

from regulations.

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast

Guard District, has issued a temporary

deviation from the drawbridge operation

regulations for the South Fulton Avenue

Bridge, mile 2.9, across the Eastchester

Creek in New York. This deviation from

the regulations allows the bridge owner

to keep the bridge in the closed

position, from 8 a.m. Monday through

4:30 p.m. Thursday, for four weeks,

October 23, 2000, through November 17,

2000. This action is necessary to

facilitate sidewalk replacement at the

bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective

October 23, 2000, through November 17,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe

Schmied, Project Officer, First Coast

Guard District, at (212) 668–7165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South

Fulton Avenue Bridge, mile 2.9, across

the Eastchester Creek has a vertical

clearance of 6 feet at mean high water,

and 13 feet at mean low water in the

closed position. The bridge owner,

Westchester County Department of

Public Works (WCDPW), requested a

temporary deviation from the operating

regulations to facilitate sidewalk

replacement at the bridge. The existing

operating regulations at 33 CFR

117.793(c) require the bridge to open on

signal from three-hours before to threehours after high tide. At all other times

the bridge shall open on signal if at least

four-hours advance notice is given.

This deviation to the operating

regulations allows the owner of the

South Fulton Avenue Bridge to keep the

bridge in the closed position from 8 a.m.

Monday through 4:30 p.m. Thursday,

for four weeks, October 23, 2000

through November 17, 2000. Vessels

that can pass under the bridge without

an opening may do so at all times.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c),

this work will be performed with all due

speed in order to return the bridge to

normal operation as soon as possible.

This deviation from the operating

regulations is authorized under 33 CFR

117.35.

Dated: October 6, 2000.

G.N. Naccara,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–27666 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AL–200018; FRL–6892–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the

State of Alabama—Call for 1-Hour

Attainment Demonstration for the

Birmingham, Alabama Marginal Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) call to

require the State of Alabama to submit

a 1-hour ozone attainment SIP for the

Birmingham marginal nonattainment

area within six months of the effective

date of this final SIP call. EPA is issuing

this SIP call because we find, in light of

the Birmingham area’s continued

nonattainment for ozone, that the

Alabama SIP is substantially inadequate

to attain the 1-hour ozone national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

In light of this finding, section 110(k)(5)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes

EPA to require Alabama to submit a 1-

hour ozone attainment plan for the

Birmingham area to correct this

inadequacy. If the State of Alabama fails

to submit an attainment SIP in response

to this SIP call, EPA will issue a finding

that the State failed to submit a required

SIP pursuant to section 179(a) of the

CAA. The finding would start the clocks

for mandatory sanctions and

development of a federal

implementation plan (FIP).

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Persons interested in

examining these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day. Please reference

file AL–200018. The Region 4 office

may have additional background

documents not available at the other

locations. Copies of documents relative

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, Atlanta

Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, Region 4, Environmental

Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303. The telephone number is

(404) 562–9038. Ms. Bingham can also

be reached via electronic mail at

Bingham.Kimberly@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

supplemental information is organized

in the following order:

I. Background

II. Why is EPA issuing this SIP call for the

Birmingham marginal ozone

nonattainment area?

III. What happens if the State of Alabama

does not submit a SIP responding to this

SIP call?

IV. Response to Comments received on the

Proposed SIP call

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

On November 15, 1990, Jefferson and

Shelby Counties, Alabama, were

designated as the Birmingham marginal

ozone nonattainment area. Section

182(f)(1)(A) of the CAA provides for an

exemption for New Source Review

offsets for nitrogen oxides (NOX) in

ozone nonattainment areas where a state

shows and EPA agrees that additional

NOX reductions would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone standard in that

area. In 1992, the Alabama Department

of Environmental Management (ADEM)

requested and received from EPA a NOX

exemption under this statutory

provision for the Birmingham marginal

ozone nonattainment area (58 FR

45439).

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets

forth five specific requirements that

states must include in a redesignation

request in order for EPA to redesignate

an area from nonattainment to

attainment. EPA provided guidance on

redesignations in the General Preamble

for the Implementation of the CAA, 57

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992),

supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992). The primary memorandum

providing further guidance with respect

to section 107(d)(3)(E) is dated

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64353

September 4, 1992, and issued by the

Director, Air Quality Management

Division, Subject: Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment (Calcagni

Memorandum).

Based on three years of air quality

data from 1991–1993, the Birmingham

area attained the 1-hour ozone standard,

thus meeting the requirement for the

area to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

by November 15, 1993. The area

continued to maintain the ozone

NAAQS through 1994. The State of

Alabama through ADEM submitted a

request for redesignation of the

Birmingham marginal ozone

nonattainment area to attainment on

March 16, 1995. In a letter dated

February 15, 1995, addressing the

prehearing submittal, EPA requested

that ADEM submit supplemental

information needed for the

redesignation request to be approvable.

ADEM submitted this supplemental

information to EPA on July 21, 1995. A

direct final rule approving the

redesignation request was signed by the

Regional Administrator and forwarded

to the EPA Federal Register Office on

August 15, 1995. The direct final rule

contained a 30 day period for public

comment on the redesignation request.

Prior to publication of the document,

EPA determined that the area registered

a violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

based on an exceedance that occurred

August 18, 1995. As a result, EPA

directed the Office of Federal Register to

recall the direct final rule from being

published. The ambient data was

quality assured according to established

procedures for validating such

monitoring data. Subsequently, EPA

withdrew the approval notice, and

disapproved the maintenance plan and

redesignation request. EPA also revoked

the NOX waiver for the Birmingham area

which was previously granted based on

a determination that the area had clean

air quality data (62 FR 49158,

September 19, 1997). Additional

violations of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

were recorded in the Birmingham area

during the 1996 and 1997 ozone

seasons, prompting EPA to request that

the State of Alabama adopt a federally

enforceable commitment to submit a SIP

revision that would provide for the

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

Because ADEM submitted the final

commitment without Board adoption

which prevented approval into the

federally enforceable SIP, Region 4

informed the State that a SIP call would

be initiated.

The proposed rulemaking notice

announcing the SIP call was published

in the Federal Register on December 16,

1999, (See 64 FR 70205). In that action,

EPA proposed to require the State of

Alabama to submit an attainment SIP

within six months after final action is

taken on the SIP call and to implement

controls by May 2003.

II. Why is EPA Issuing This SIP call for

the Birmingham Marginal Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

To assure that SIPs provide for the

attainment and maintenance of the

relevant NAAQS, section 110(k)(5) of

the CAA authorizes EPA to find that a

SIP is substantially inadequate to attain

or maintain a NAAQS, and to require

(‘‘call for’’) the State to submit, within

a specified period, a SIP revision to

correct the inadequacy. This CAA

requirement for a SIP revision is known

as a ‘‘SIP call.’’ The CAA authorizes

EPA to allow a state up to 18 months to

respond to a SIP call. EPA is issuing this

SIP call, because violations of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS have been recorded

in the Birmingham area for the last

several 3-year periods, which were after

the required attainment date of

November 15, 1993. EPA is authorized

under section 110(k)(5) to issue this SIP

call requiring the State of Alabama to

develop a 1-hour ozone attainment plan

as a SIP revision for the Birmingham

area because EPA finds the current

Alabama SIP inadequate to assure

attainment and maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS. Also, in

consideration of the length of time that

has passed since the required

attainment date of November 15, 1993,

the substantial air quality modeling

already completed, and the ongoing

discussions with ADEM, EPA believes it

is reasonable to require the State of

Alabama to make the submittal within

six months of finalization of this SIP

call.

III. What Happens if the State of

Alabama Does Not Submit a SIP

Revision Responding to This SIP Call?

If EPA finds the State of Alabama has

failed to submit a complete 1-hour

ozone attainment plan for the

Birmingham nonattainment area as

required by this SIP call, or disapproves

the attainment plan, EPA will apply

sanctions within 18 months of the

finding as authorized by sections

110(m), 179(a)(1), and 179(a)(2) of the

CAA. Sanctions available to EPA under

section 179 of the CAA include highway

sanctions and emission offsets. Pursuant

to EPA implementing regulations at 40

CFR 52.31, the emission offset sanction

is applied first. Under this sanction, the

ratio of emission reductions that must

be obtained to offset increased

emissions caused by new major sources

or modifications to major sources in the

Birmingham area must be at least two to

one. If the State of Alabama does not

make a complete submission within six

months after the offset sanction applies,

then the highway funding sanction will

apply, in accordance with CAA sections

179(a) and (b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. In

addition, sanctions would apply in the

same manner if the State of Alabama

submits a plan that EPA determines is

incomplete or that EPA disapproves.

Finally, CAA section 110(c) provides

that EPA promulgate a federal

implementation plan (FIP) no later than

24 months after a finding of failure to

submit a SIP unless the State of

Alabama has submitted and EPA has

approved the attainment plan.

IV. Response to Comments Received on

the Proposed SIP Call

EPA received seventeen comments in

response to the proposed SIP call. EPA

compiled the comments into seven

categories, and they are addressed

below.

Comment 1. ‘‘Even though ADEM’’ s

regulatory development is short in

comparison to most states, a minimum

of six months is necessary from

proposal to effective date. If, for

example, significant comments are

received, this process can be even

longer. Moreover, a sufficient time

period should be given to enable the

stakeholder group to provide adequate

input. Six months is simply not enough

time to fully address the area’s ozone

problem.’’

Response: EPA is authorized under

section 110(k)(5) to issue this SIP call

requiring the State of Alabama to

develop a 1-hour ozone attainment SIP

revision for the Birmingham area. EPA

can allow up to 18 months for a State

to submit a plan, but has the discretion

to determine what is a reasonable

timeframe for submission of a plan in

response to a SIP call. EPA believes that

six months is reasonable. In a letter

dated February 4, 1997, EPA requested

that the State of Alabama provide a

timeline identifying when a 1-hour

attainment SIP would be submitted. In

response, ADEM submitted a timeline in

a letter dated March 13, 1997, that had

a submission date for the 1-hour

attainment SIP of March 1998. Because

of several policy changes associated

with the new 8-hour ozone standard,

EPA requested that the State of Alabama

adopt a federally enforceable

commitment to submit a SIP that would

provide for the attainment of the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. ADEM submitted the

final commitment without Board

adoption, precluding approval into the

federally enforceable SIP. That

64354 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

commitment included a final submittal

date of September 1999. In

consideration of the length of time that

EPA has already spent working with

ADEM in an effort to develop an

attainment plan and the substantial air

quality modeling already completed

toward this end, EPA believes it is

reasonable to require the State of

Alabama to submit the attainment SIP in

six months. ADEM prepared a draft

attainment demonstration and

submitted it to EPA on September 10,

1999. EPA submitted comments on the

draft submittal, and ADEM submitted a

revised attainment demonstration on

April 21, 2000, in response to EPA’s

comments. The draft attainment

demonstration would achieve the

emission reductions through controls on

power plants and a low sulfur fuel

program. EPA Region 4 continues to

work with ADEM to resolve all

remaining issues with the draft plan to

ensure that the regulations necessary for

attainment are adopted in a timely

fashion.

Comment 2. ‘‘The consultative

requirements of our Conformity SIP

require that the signatory parties be

given an opportunity to comment on a

draft SIP revision before undertaking the

rulemaking process. This lengthens the

time between EPA’s preliminary

approval of our draft SIP revision and

the beginning of the formal rulemaking

process.’’

Response: The transportation

conformity interagency consultation

process is continuous throughout the

development of a SIP and transportation

plans. Its purpose is to ensure that the

transportation plan is developed in a

manner that supports the state’s efforts

toward attainment/maintenance of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. If consultation is

conducted on a continual basis and

issues are discussed up-front in the plan

development stage, then it should not

lengthen the rulemaking process. In fact,

consultation should streamline it, by

resolving issues early in the process.

Formal concurrence by all interagency

partners is not a prerequisite for the

State to move forward in its SIP

development and rulemaking.

Comment 3. ‘‘EPA has acknowledged

the difficulties, both technical and

procedural, in preparing approvable

ozone attainment SIPs across the

country by frequently extending

submission and attainment times in

other urban areas.’’

Response: EPA has provided

flexibility for some areas with respect to

SIP submission requirements and with

attainment dates. In the early to mid1990’s, EPA was concerned that many

areas in the eastern United States were

having difficulty demonstrating

attainment by the statutory deadline

because of the potential transport of

ozone and its precursors (volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX)

from other States. On March 2, 1995,

EPA issued a policy document, entitled

Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,

providing that eastern states that

participated in a process to assess

regional transport could follow a twophase submission process for attainment

demonstrations for ozone nonattainment

areas classified as serious or severe. The

37 easternmost states participated in

this process, which was called the

Ozone Transport Assessment Group

(OTAG). OTAG also included

representatives from industry,

environmental groups, and academia.

Over approximately two years, OTAG

conducted studies and made

recommendations to EPA. In response to

OTAG recommendations, EPA called on

twenty-two states and the District of

Columbia to reduce emissions of NOX

that were transported to other states

(NOX SIP Call) , 63 FR 57356 (October

27, 1998).

In addition, EPA has issued guidance

providing that an area that is affected by

transport may receive an attainment

date extension that reflects the time for

the implementation of regional NOX

reductions or the attainment date for

any upwind nonattainment area that is

the source of transport and that has a

later attainment date.

The policy concerning SIP submission

dates for serious and severe areas is

inapplicable here. The regional analysis

that formed the basis for the two-phased

approach for serious and severe areas

has been completed since 1998. EPA

addressed more fully in the response to

comment 1, the factors EPA considered

in determining the appropriate SIP

submittal date for the Birmingham

attainment demonstration.

With respect to the attainment date

for the Birmingham area, EPA is not

setting an attainment date through this

action. Alabama will need to establish

an appropriate attainment date in its SIP

submittal. At this time, EPA believes

that the attainment demonstration for

Birmingham should provide for

attainment by November 2003, since

EPA is unaware of any evidence that

Birmingham is affected by transport

from a nonattainment area with an

attainment date later than 2003.

Comment 4. ‘‘A new local stakeholder

group should be required and

constituted which includes

representatives from health,

government, business, environmental,

and public interests. This group will

advise and provide input for the SIP.

The potential exists for considerable

local opposition to the plan if the public

is not involved in the planning

process.’’

Response: It is important to note that

EPA does not require states to form a

stakeholders group to assist with the

development of SIPs, including

attainment demonstrations. It is up to

the state to decide whether or not to

involve a stakeholder group. EPA does

require that the State of Alabama hold

a public hearing before submitting a

final SIP. Therefore, the public will

have an opportunity to provide input on

the Birmingham 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration at the public

hearing.

Although not required, in 1997,

ADEM did form an Advisory Committee

to assist with the development of a

control strategy for the Birmingham

area. Representatives from ADEM, other

State agencies, EPA, private industry,

and other local stakeholders made up

this Advisory Committee.

Comment 5. ‘‘EPA’s delay in

addressing the draft SIP has put the EPA

desired compliance deadline of May

2003 in jeopardy for Alabama Power.

Without an approved SIP, we are

quickly reaching the point where a May

2003 compliance deadline is not

possible at any reasonable cost. We have

already had to postpone awarding a

contract for required equipment and are

in the process of rescheduling the

planned unit outages. We have control

over our unit outages, however the

equipment implementation challenges

aren’t necessarily confined to internal

resources. In fact, most critical paths

pertain to external circumstances. There

are many NOX control projects in the

region, with many vying for the same

supply materials, manufacturers, and

labor. The more delay in obtaining an

approved Alabama SIP from EPA, the

longer it will take to procure these finite

external resources.’’

Response: Alabama Power did not

specify in its comment letter the types

of controls that would be implemented

at the two utility plants identified in the

draft attainment demonstration. Even if

Alabama Power chose a more

complicated control to implement such

as selective catalytic reduction, EPA has

estimated that this control could be

readily installed within 21 months

which is within the timeframe to meet

a 2003 compliance deadline. With

respect to Alabama Power experiencing

a delay due to the lack of supply

materials, manufacturers, and labor,

EPA examined each of these

considerations and found that an

adequate supply of each would be

available. For a more detailed

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64355

discussion on all of this information, see

the report released in September 1998,

by the EPA Office of Air and Radiation,

Acid Rain Division entitled, ‘‘Feasibility

of Installing NOX Control Technologies

in 2003.’’ The web address for the

feasibility report is http://www.epa.gov/

capi/ipm/npr.htm.

Comment 6. ‘‘The plan should

address the underlying issues of

transportation planning and sprawling

development patterns that can result

from unintelligent transportation

investments. Thus, the plan should be

comprehensive and incorporate a

balanced portfolio of available control

strategies. I agree that the State of

Alabama should develop a plan that

will solve the ozone pollution problem

in Jefferson and Shelby counties. The

plan needs to be comprehensive and

must incorporate input from the public.

The following elements should be

included: all available control

measures—including vehicle emissions

testing and transportation control

measures which were not included in

the draft SIP revision.’’

Response: Birmingham is designated

as a marginal nonattainment area for the

ozone NAAQS. In marginal

nonattainment areas, EPA does not

require that vehicle emissions testing be

used as a control measure. Further, EPA

does not require states to implement any

particular transportation control

measures. To demonstrate attainment of

the NAAQS, the State has the option of

choosing between a variety of control

measures. States are given this

flexibility to ensure that the most

effective and feasible control measures

for the affected area are implemented. In

its draft plan, Alabama has opted to

place stricter standards on two utilities

and to continue implementing its low

sulfur fuel program. Alabama also

adopted an emergency rule to require

reformulated gasoline or a low sulfur

fuel in 1998, to provide further

reductions in ozone precursors in the

Birmingham nonattainment area.

Alabama’s low sulfur fuel rule

indirectly addresses concerns relating to

the impact of mobile sources due to

sprawl by requiring stricter standards

for fuel. Further, on December 21, 1999,

EPA finalized the Tier 2/Low Sulfur

rules which place stricter standards on

cars, light duty trucks and the fuel used

to operate these vehicles. Under that

program, cars will be cleaner

nationwide starting in model year 2004.

Comment 7. ‘‘USEPA should call

upon ADEM to educate and involve the

public with respect to modeling of air

quality conditions in the region and

modeling of improvements to air quality

resulting from alternative control

strategies. As we are beginning to see in

Atlanta, strategies to comply with air

quality standards have become a

complex computer modeling exercise

unknown, and without USEPA

intervention unknowable, to even the

most attentive and interested

stakeholders. A public education and

involvement program focusing upon the

modeling component of SIP

development should condition any

extension of the submittal date.’’

Response: ADEM and the Jefferson

County Bureau of Environmental Health

both have Education and Outreach

programs that focus on educating the

public on various issues including air

quality modeling. EPA does not have

the authority to require states to sponsor

such education and outreach programs.

However, EPA does support the

outreach efforts of both ADEM and

Jefferson County through the CAA

section 105 grant program, and

encourages them to continue to work

with and inform the public about air

quality issues.

Final Action

EPA finds that the State of Alabama’s

SIP is inadequate in that it fails to

assure attainment and maintenance of

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the

Birmingham nonattainment area. To

address this inadequacy, EPA is calling

on the State of Alabama to submit a 1-

hour ozone attainment plan as a SIP

revision for the Birmingham

nonattainment area within six months

of the publication date of today’s action.

In addition, the sanctions contained in

sections 179(a) and (b) of the CAA and

in 40 CFR 50.31 will apply in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.31 if EPA

determines that the State fails to submit

the required attainment demonstration

plan for Birmingham, or the State

submits a plan that EPA finds is

incomplete or that EPA disapproves.

V. 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

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), 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 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.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It 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. In issuing this

SIP Call, EPA is acting under section

110(k)(5), which requires the Agency to

require a State to correct a deficiency

that EPA has found in the State

implementation plan (SIP). Through this

action, EPA has determined that the

Birmingham 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area has been in

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

over the last several 3-year periods and

is requiring the State to submit a plan

demonstrating how the area can be

brought back into attainment. This

action calling on the State does not

change the established relationship

between the State and EPA under title

I of the CAA. Under title I of the CAA

States have the primary responsibility to

develop plans to attain and maintain the

NAAQS. The State has discretion to

choose the control requirements

necessary to bring the area into

attainment with the NAAQS. Finally,

this action will not impose substantial

direct compliance costs. This action

affects one area in one State. While the

State will incur some costs to develop

the plan, those costs are not expected to

be substantial. Moreover, under section

105 of the CAA, the federal government

supports the States’ SIP development

activities by providing partial funding of

State programs for the prevention and

control of air pollution. Thus, Executive

Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

Although section 6 of Executive Order

13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA

did consult extensively with State and

local officials regarding the

requirements of this SIP Call as noted in

section I and in response to comment 1

above.

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

64356 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 final

rulemaking is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant, nor does it

involve decisions on environmental

health or safety risks that may

disproportionately affect children.

D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

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, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to 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. This action requires the

State of Alabama to develop a SIP to

attain the national ambient air quality

standard for ozone for the Birmingham,

Alabama, area. There are no tribal

governments affected by this

rulemaking. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute 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 organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s final rulemaking on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

small business as defined in the Small

Business Administration’s (SBA)

regulations at 13 CFR 12.201; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

I certify that this action will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The SIP Call does not establish any new

requirements applicable to small

entities. EPA is issuing this SIP call

because it finds that the State of

Alabama’s SIP is inadequate to assure

attainment and maintenance of the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS for the Birmingham

nonattainment area. In submitting its 1-

hour ozone attainment plan SIP

revisions as required by this SIP call,

Alabama has discretion in formulating

the components of that attainment plan.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)

(‘‘UMRA’’), establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

2 U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement, including a

cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed

or final rule that ‘‘includes any Federal

mandate that may result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more

* * * in any one year. A ‘‘Federal

mandate’’ is defined under section

421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’

and a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’

A ‘‘Federal intergovernmental

mandate,’’ in turn, is defined to include

a regulation that ‘‘would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, or

tribal governments,’’ section

421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i),

except for, among other things, a duty

that is ‘‘a condition of Federal

assistance,’’ section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A

‘‘Federal private sector mandate’’

includes a regulation that ‘‘would

impose an enforceable duty upon the

private sector,’’ with certain exceptions,

section 421(7)(A), 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).

EPA believes that it is questionable

whether a requirement to submit a SIP

revision constitutes a federal mandate.

The obligation for a State to revise its

SIP arises out of sections 110(a) and

110(k)(5) of the CAA and is not legally

enforceable by a court of law, and at

most is a condition for continued

receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it

is possible to view an action requiring

such a submittal as not creating any

enforceable duty within the meaning of

section 421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C.

658(a)(I)). Even if it did, the duty could

be viewed as falling within the

exception for the condition of Federal

assistance under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of

UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)).

In addition, even if the obligation for

a State to revise its SIP does create an

enforceable duty within the meaning of

UMRA, this SIP Call does not trigger

section 202 of UMRA because the

aggregate to the State, local, and tribal

governments to comply are less than

$100,000,000 in any one year. Because

this SIP Call does not trigger section 202

of UMRA, the requirement in section

205 of UMRA that EPA identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt to the

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule is not

applicable.

Furthermore, EPA is not directly

establishing any regulatory

requirements that may significantly

impact or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated

to develop under section 203 of UMRA

a small government agency plan.

Finally, with regard to the

intergovernmental consultation

provisions of section 204 of UMRA, EPA

carried out numerous consultations

with the State of Alabama over several

years as noted in section I above and in

response to comment 1.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64357

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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA) 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 this action. Today’s 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 action does not affect the

finality of this action 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

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,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for citation for part

52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B—Alabama

2. Section 52.66 is amended by

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a) and adding a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.66 Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(b) The State of Alabama is required

to submit an attainment demonstration

SIP for the Birmingham 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area by April 27, 2000.

For purposes of the SIP revision

required by this section, EPA may make

a finding as applicable under section

179(a)(1)–(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7509(a)(1)–(4), starting the sanctions

process set forth in section 179(a) of the

CAA. Any such finding will be deemed

a finding under § 52.31(c) and sanctions

will be imposed in accordance with the

order of sanctions and the terms for

such sanctions established in § 52.31.

[FR Doc. 00–27584 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–25–7223a; A–1–FRL–6891–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Connecticut; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: We are converting our limited

approval under the Clean Air Act of the

State of Connecticut’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for

an enhanced vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program, which was

granted on March 10, 1999 (64 FR

12005), to a full approval. In our March

10, 1999 limited approval, we said

Connecticut needed to submit revisions

to its SIP to address eight sections of

EPA’s enhanced I/M regulation for full

approval. We have determined that on

November 16, 1999 Connecticut

submitted revisions that meet all of the

conditions for full approval. The intent

of this action is to convert our limited

approval of Connecticut’s enhanced

vehicle I/M program SIP to a full

approval.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on December 26, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant

adverse comment by November 27,

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 Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ),

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA-New England, One Congress Street,

11th floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau

of Air Management, Department of

Environmental Protection, State Office

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT

06106–1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Hagerty, (617) 918–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

I. What action Is EPA taking today?

II. What Connecticut SIP revision is the topic

of this action?

III. What were the requirements for full

approval of the Connecticut program?

IV. How did Connecticut fulfill these

requirements for full approval?

V. EPA Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are converting our

limited approval of Connecticut’s I/M

program as a revision to the SIP to a full

approval.

II. What Connecticut SIP Revision Is

the Topic of This Action?

This notice deals with a revision to

the State of Connecticut’s Clean Air Act

SIP submitted by the State of

Connecticut on November 16, 1999 for

certain program elements necessary to

complete the enhanced vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program. Today we are acting only upon

this November 16, 1999 submittal to

determine that Connecticut submitted

revisions meeting all of the conditions

necessary to convert the limited

approval of the enhanced I/M plan to a

full approval. In so doing we are not

reopening our March 10, 1999 final

rulemaking granting limited approval of

Connecticut’s enhanced I/M SIP

submitted on June 24, 1998, as

supplemented on November 13, 1998.