68898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

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 January 16, 2001.

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,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements..

Dated: September 20, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA—New England.

Part 52 of 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 W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1129 is added to subpart

W to read as follows:

§ 52.1129 Control strategy: Ozone.

Revisions to the State Implementation

Plan submitted by the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

on April 1, 1999, and supplemented on

June 25, 1999 and September 9, 1999.

The revisions are for the purpose of

satisfying the rate of progress

requirements of sections 182(b)(1) and

182(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act for the

Springfield, Massachusetts serious

ozone nonattainment area.

[FR Doc. 00–29066 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–014–7195D; A–1–FRL–6882–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Enhanced Motor

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. This revision establishes

and requires an enhanced inspection

and maintenance program in

Massachusetts. The intended effect of

this action is to provide limited

approval of the inspection and

maintenance program which has been

operating in Massachusetts since

October 1, 1999. This action is being

taken in accordance with the Clean Air

Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective on December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment at the

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Room M–1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code

6102), SW., Washington, DC; and

Division of Air Quality Control,

Department of Environmental

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,

Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter X. Hagerty, (617) 918–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 27, 1999 (64 FR 51937), and

on November 30, 1999 (64 FR 66829),

EPA published Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR) for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The

NPRs proposed approval of an enhanced

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program once the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) submitted supplemental

documentation. Massachusetts

submitted the formal SIP revision on

May 14, 1999.

The September 27, 1999, proposed

rulemaking notice stated that prior to

final action, Massachusetts must submit

certain items which had not yet been

supplied by the program contractor.

These items included requirements

specified in the following sections of the

EPA I/M Rule: Network Type and

Program Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353,

Test Procedures and Standards—40 CFR

51.357, Test Equipment—40 CFR

51.358, Quality Control—40 CFR

51.359, Quality Assurance—40 CFR

51.363, and On-road Testing—40 CFR

51.371. The November 30, 1999

supplemental notice indicated that

Massachusetts could not claim full I/M

240 credit for the Massachusetts I/M

program, but EPA believed the program

would achieve at least low enhanced

program credit, therefore proposed

approval was still appropriate.

In response to the September 27,

1999, Federal Register document,

Massachusetts made the following

submissions: Test Procedures and

Equipment Specifications on February

1, 2000, and Acceptance Test Protocol

on March 15, 2000. These submittals

were designed to better define the

information required in Test Procedures

and Standards—40 CFR 51.357, and

Test Equipment—40 CFR 51.358. With

these two submissions the

Massachusetts I/M SIP now meets the

requirements of these two sections of

the EPA rule. On March 15, 2000

Massachusetts also submitted Overt

Audit Software Specifications which

addresses part of the requirements for

Quality Assurance, 40 CFR 51.363. On

July 14, 2000, Massachusetts submitted

a Draft Quality Assurance and Quality

Control Plan. In a letter dated August 8,

2000 EPA provided minor comments on

this plan.

The following sections still require

additional information to meet the

requirements of the I/M rule: Network

Type and Program Evaluation—40 CFR

51.353, Quality Control—40 CFR Part

51.359, Quality Assurance—40 CFR

51.363 and On-road Testing—40 CFR

51.371. These requirements were

explained in the NPR and will not be

restated here. In response to the

Supplementary Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 68899

published in the Federal Register on

November 30, 1999, EPA and the DEP

have had extensive discussions

concerning a comparison testing

program between EPA’s IM240 test and

the Massachusetts I/M test. A testing

program has been designed and will

soon be started. DEP will provide EPA

with copies of the work orders to

initiate this program once they have

been issued. The results of this program

will enable EPA to assign appropriate

emission reduction credit for the

Massachusetts I/M program.

Massachusetts has been successfully

operating a transient testing program

with a 31 second test and NYTEST

equipment, which is expected to

provide high emitter identification rates

which are close to the rates provided by

IM240 testing. This expectation is based

on testing of the NYTEST equipment by

New York and the 31 second test by

Oregon. Although we cannot at this time

assign appropriate program credit, this

will be done once the comparison

testing is completed.

Interim Credit—There is no data

available at this time to assign

appropriate emission reduction credit

for the combination of test type and

equipment that the Commonwealth is

implementing. Nevertheless, even if one

makes extremely conservative

assumptions about the efficacy of the

Massachusetts test, EPA’s mobile

modeling shows that the I/M program

demonstrates at least compliance with

low enhanced I/M program performance

standard, and it therefore meets the

requirement for this aspect of the

program. Moreover, this conservative

estimate of the performance standard

still provides sufficient emission

reduction credits to support the 15%

and 9% rate of progress plans EPA is

approving elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register. EPA’s analysis of these

conservative assumptions is available in

a technical support document in the

docket for the November 30, 1999

Federal Register Notice.

Other specific requirements of the

I/M rule and the rationale for EPA’s

proposed action are explained in the

NPR and will not be restated here. No

public comments were received on the

NPR.

Final Action

EPA is providing limited approval of

the Massachusetts inspection and

maintenance program as a revision

designed to strengthen the

Massachusetts SIP.

This action will make the I/M

program an enforceable part of the

Massachusetts SIP, but DEP must still

supplement the program to get full

approval and meet the I/M requirements

of the Act. Edward Kunce, acting

Commissioner of DEP submitted this

plan revision on May 14, 1999 with

subsequent submissions on February 1,

2000, and March 15, 2000, as a revision

to the SIP. The Commonwealth must

submit to EPA additional information

on Network Type and Program

Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353, On-road

Testing—40 CFR 51.371 and a final QA/

QC plan to meet the requirements of

Quality Control—40 CFR 51.359, and

Quality Assurance—40 CFR 51.363,

prior to EPA giving full approval to the

Massachusetts I/M SIP. EPA will then

publish a subsequent final rulemaking

notice in the Federal Register, when the

State submits the needed information.

This approval action will remain a part

of the SIP until EPA takes final action

fully approving or disapproving the

revised I/M SIP submittal.

Massachusetts DEP Regulation 310

CMR 60.02 ‘‘Regulations for the

Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program’’ replaces

completely the existing regulation 310

CMR 7.20 ‘‘Motor Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance Emission Analyzer

Approval Process and Inspection

Requirements and Procedures.’’

Regulation 310 CMR 7.20 will be

removed from both the table identifying

the SIP in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) and from the files

where EPA incorporates by reference

Massachusetts rules into the SIP.

Massachusetts Registry of Motor

Vehicles Regulation 540 CMR 4.00

entitled ‘‘Periodic Annual Staggered

Safety and Combined Safety and

Emissions Inspection of All Motor

Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-trailers and

Converter Dollies’’ although part of the

previous I/M program was not

incorporated by reference and was not

listed in Table 52.1167. This regulation

which was revised for the enhanced

I/M program and effective October 1,

1999 will be incorporated by reference

and added to table 52.1167.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

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

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

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

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

68900 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

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 January 16, 2001.

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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 20, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.

Part 52 of 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 W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(122) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(122) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on May 14,

1999, February 1, 2000 and March 15,

2000.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Regulation 310 CMR 60.02

entitled ‘‘Regulations for the Enhanced

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program’’ which became

effective on October 1, 1999, and a

September 17, 1999, Notice of

Correction submitted by the Secretary of

State indicating the effective date of the

regulations.

(B) Sections 4.01, 4.02, 4.03, 4.04(1),

(2), (3), (5), (15) 4.05(1), (2), (12)(d),

(12)(e), (12)(o) 4.07, 4.08, and 4.09 of

Regulation 540 CMR 4.00 entitled

‘‘Periodic Annual Staggered Safety and

Combined Safety and Emissions

Inspection of All Motor Vehicles,

Trailers, Semi-trailers and Converter

Dollies’ which became effective on May

28, 1999.’’

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Letters from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated May 14, 1999, February 1, 2000,

and March 15, 2000, submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Test Procedures and Equipment

Specifications submitted on February 1,

2000.

(C) Acceptance Test Protocol

submitted on March 15, 2000.

§ 52.1167 [Amended]

3. Table 52.1167 is amended by

removing Regulation 310 CMR 7.20

‘‘Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Emission Analyzer

Approval Process and Inspection

Requirements and Procedures.’’

4. In § 52.1167 the Table 52.1167 is

amended by adding new entries in

numerical order for ‘‘310 CMR 60.02’’

and 540 CMR 4.00’’ to read as follows,

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts

State regulations.

* * * * *

TABLE 52.1167.—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject

Date submitted by

State

Date approved by

EPA

Federal Register

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections

*******

310 CMR 60.02 Regulations for the

enhanced Motor

Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance

Program

5/14/99 11/15/00 65 FR 68900 122 Replaces requirements for I/M tests

with enhanced I/M

test requirements.

540 CMR 4.00 Periodic Annual

Staggered Safety

and Emissions Inspection of Motor

Vehicles

5/13/99 11/15/00 65 FR 68900 122 Revises Requirements for Inspections and Enforcement of I/M Program

[FR Doc. 00–29067 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 68901

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WI96–01–7327a; FRL–6901–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 5, 1999, the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) submitted a request

to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) to redesignate a portion of the

City of Rhinelander (Oneida County)

Wisconsin from a primary sulfur

dioxide (SO2) nonattainment area to

attainment. In this action EPA is

approving the State’s request, because it

meets all of the Clean Air Act (Act)

requirements for redesignation.

If EPA receives adverse comments on

this action, we will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective January 16, 2001, unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

December 15, 2000. If the rule is

withdrawn, EPA will publish timely

notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We

recommend that you telephone

Madeline Rucker at (312) 886–0661,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A copy of this redesignation is

available for inspection at this Office of

Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christos Panos, Regulation Development

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

Air and Radiation Division, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353–8328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking?

B. Why was this SIP revision submitted?

C. Why can we approve this request?

D. What requirements must be met for

approval of a redesignation, and how did the

state meet them?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking?

We are approving the State of

Wisconsin’s request to redesignate a

portion of the City of Rhinelander

(Oneida County) from a primary SO2

nonattainment area to attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS. We are also approving the

maintenance plan for this area into the

Wisconsin SO2 SIP.

B. Why Was This SIP Revision

Submitted?

WDNR believes that the City of

Rhinelander is now eligible for

redesignation because EPA approved

Wisconsin’s SO2 SIP in 1995 and SO2

monitors in Rhinelander have not

recorded exceedances of either the

primary or secondary SO2 air quality

standards since 1986.

C. Why Can We Approve This Request?

Consistent with the Act’s

requirements, EPA developed

procedures for redesignation of

nonattainment areas that are in a

September 4, 1992, memorandum from

John Calcagni, EPA, titled, Procedures

for Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment. This EPA guidance

document contains a number of

conditions that a State must meet before

it can request a change in designation

for a federally designated nonattainment

area. That memorandum and EPA’s

Technical Support Document set forth

the rationale in support of the

redesignation of Rhinelander’s SO2

nonattainment area to an attainment

status.

D. What Requirements Must the State

Meet for Approval of a Redesignation

and How Did the State Meet Them?

1. The State Must Show That the Area

Is Attaining the Applicable NAAQS

There are two components involved

in making this demonstration:

a. Ambient air quality monitoring

representative of the area of highest

concentration must show no more than

one exceedance annually; and

b. EPA approved air quality modeling

must show that the area in question

meets the applicable standard.

The first component relies on ambient

air quality data representative of the

area of highest concentration. The

primary 24-hour concentration limit of

the SO2 NAAQS is 365 micrograms per

cubic meter (μg/m3). The primary

annual concentration limit is 80 μg/m3.

According to 40 CFR 50.4, an area must

show no more than one exceedance

annually. WDNR’s monitoring data

satisfies the first component, indicating

that there has been no exceedance of the

24-hour concentration limit since 1986.

Monitoring data for the annual

concentration limit goes back to 1994

and indicates no exceedance of the

annual limit since that time.

The second component relies on

supplemental EPA approved air quality

modeling. Air quality modeling,

however, could not be used in this case

because the modeling under-predicted

actual ambient air concentrations due to

the unique topography of the area.

Under EPA modeling guidelines,

ambient data (i.e., a rollback analysis)

may be used to determine appropriate

emission limits. A rollback analysis

takes a monitored ambient exceedance

recorded during a specific set of facility

operating conditions and determines the

amount of the exceedance due to each

of the source’s SO2-emitting operations

in use at that time. These estimates are

then linearly ‘‘rolled back’’ to acceptable

SO2 emission limits that provide for

attainment of the NAAQS under that set

of operating conditions. The State

submitted emission limits determined

by using the rollback analysis in an

October 21, 1994 SIP revision. EPA

approved these limits into the

Wisconsin SO2 SIP by EPA on December

7, 1994 at 59 FR 63046.

Therefore, WDNR satisfied the second

component by supplying monitoring

information as a substitute for the

modeling demonstration requirement,

showing that the area has been in

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS since

1987.

2. The SIP for the Area Must Be Fully

Approved Under Section 110(k) of the

Act and Must Satisfy all Requirements

That Apply to the Area

WDNR submitted the Rhinelander

SO2 SIP revision to EPA on October 21,

1994 to fulfill the requirements of

section 110 and part D of the Act. The

state’s submittal consisted primarily of

an August 22, 1994 Consent Order (AM–

94–38) between the state and the

Rhinelander Paper Company (RPC). EPA

approved the permanent requirements

of the consent order for RPC into the

federally enforceable SO2 SIP on

December 7, 1994 at 59 FR 63046.