69254 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

7652(a), on tobacco products and

cigarette paper and tubes of Puerto

Rican manufacture which are to be

shipped to the United States, the

shipper shall file, or cause to be filed,

with the Chief, Puerto Rico Operations,

a tax return, ATF Form 5000.25, in

duplicate, with full remittance of tax

which will become due on such tobacco

products and cigarette papers and

tubes.* * *

Signed: October 16, 2000.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

Approved: October 25, 2000.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, (Regulatory,

Tariff and Trade Enforcement).

[FR Doc. 00–29409 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–081–7211a; A–1–FRL–6897–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; 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

Commonwealth of Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for

an enhanced vehicle inspection and

maintenance program to a full approval.

In our limited approval, we said

Massachusetts needed to submit

revisions to its SIP to address four

sections of EPA’s enhanced I/M

regulation for full approval. We have

determined that on October 20, 2000

Massachusetts submitted revisions that

meet all of the conditions for full

approval. Additionally, we are also

approving an interim level of emission

reduction credit for the inspection and

maintenance program that can be

utilized by Massachusetts in attainment

planning. The intent of this action is to

convert our limited approval of

Massachusetts’ enhanced vehicle I/M

program SIP to a full approval and to

approve an interim level of emission

reduction credit for attainment planning

purposes.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on January 16, 2001 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant

adverse comment by December 18,

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), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours, by appointment at the Office

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 Hagerty, (617) 918–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking today?

II. What Massachusetts SIP revision is the

topic of this action?

III. What were the requirements for full

approval of the Massachusetts inspection

and maintenance program?

IV. How did Massachusetts fulfill these

requirements for full approval?

V. What action did EPA take to defer

sanctions in Massachusetts?

VI. What credit may Massachusetts assume in

the interim until the correlation study is

complete?

VII. EPA Action

VIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are converting our

limited approval of Massachusetts’

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) SIP to a full

approval.

We are also approving Massachusetts

to use ASM credits for future planning

purposes until the correlation study to

compare IM240 with the Massachusetts

31 second test (MA31 test) is completed.

Note: The full approval of the

Massachusetts I/M program is based on

the ability of the program to achieve the

low-enhanced performance standard,

and EPA has already determined that

the program meets the low-enhanced

standard in its limited approval of the

program.

II. What Massachusetts SIP Revision Is

the Topic of This Action?

This notice deals with a revision to

the State of Massachusetts’ Clean Air

Act SIP submitted by Massachusetts on

October 20, 2000 for certain program

elements necessary to complete the I/M

program. Today we are acting only upon

this October 20, 1999 submittal to

determine that Massachusetts 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 final rulemaking granting

limited approval of the Massachusetts

enhanced I/M SIP submitted on May 14,

1999 and approved at 40 CFR

52.1120(c)(122).

III. What Were the Requirements for

Full Approval of the Massachusetts

Inspection and Maintenance Program?

Approval of Massachusetts’ I/M

program SIP required submission of

information to meet the requirements of

the following sections of EPA’s I/M

regulations: Network type and program

evaluation—40 CFR 51.353; Quality

control—40 CFR 51.359; Quality

assurance—40 CFR 51.363; and On-road

testing—40 CFR 51.371.

IV. How Did Massachusetts Fulfill

These Requirements for Full Approval?

On October 20, 2000, Massachusetts

submitted revisions to its enhanced I/M

SIP to EPA in order to meet the

conditions for full approval. The

following is a description of the

measures which Massachusetts has

submitted to meet each of the deficient

areas described in the limited approval

approved at 40 CFR 52.1120(c)(122).

1. Network type and program

evaluation—40 CFR 51.353—As part of

its October 20, 2000 submittal,

Massachusetts submitted a document

entitled ‘‘Program Evaluation Plans For

the Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance Program,’’ dated October

2000. The Program Evaluation Plans

contained a final ‘‘MA31-to-IM240

Correlation Study.’’ The protocol for the

correlation study was developed with

EPA input and is acceptable to establish

final emission reduction credit for the

Massachusetts I/M program. A task

assignment has been signed by

Massachusetts to gather data to conduct

the study described in the protocol. A

copy of that task assignment was

included in the October 20, 2000

submittal.

The Program Evaluation Plans, dated

October 2000, also contained a ‘‘Phase

2 Program Evaluation Plan for the

Massachusetts I&M Program.’’ The

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 69255

phase 2 program evaluation will begin

after the MA31-to-IM240 correlation

study is complete. The phase 2 program

will evaluate the Massachusetts I/M

program using a modified method of the

EPA/Sierra Research Method. On

January 9, 1998 (63 FR 1362), EPA

finalized revisions to its program

evaluation requirements allowing this

methodology to be utilized. This section

of the SIP now meets the requirements

of EPA’s I/M rule.

2. Quality control—40 CFR 51.359—

As part of its October 20, 2000

submittal, Massachusetts submitted a

document entitled ‘‘Quality Assurance

and Quality Control Plan For the

Massachusetts Enhanced Emissions and

Safety Inspection Program,’’ dated

October 16, 2000. This plan contains the

needed quality control procedures. This

section of the SIP now meets the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

3. Quality assurance—40 CFR

51.363—As part of its October 20, 2000

submittal, Massachusetts submitted a

document entitled ‘‘Quality Assurance

and Quality Control Plan For the

Massachusetts Enhanced Emissions and

Safety Inspection Program,’’ dated

October 16, 2000. This plan contains the

needed quality assurance measures and

provisions. This section of the SIP now

meets the requirements of EPA’s I/M

rule.

4. On-road testing—40 CFR 51.371—

In the October 20, 2000 submittal letter,

Massachusetts has committed to

conducting on-road testing with remote

sensing and has shown that resources

are available to do the testing. Data will

be analyzed and a report submitted to

EPA. This section of the SIP now meets

the requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

V. What Action Did EPA Take To Defer

Sanctions in Massachusetts?

Due to the disapproval of an earlier I/

M SIP submitted by the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, the Clean Air Act’s

offset sanction was applicable in

Massachusetts beginning May 15, 1999

and the Clean Air Act’s highway

sanction was applicable beginning

November 15, 1999. On November 30,

1999 (64 FR 66775), EPA published an

interim final rule in the Federal

Register which deferred the application

of those sanctions beginning on

December 15, 1999. Our interim final

rule was based on a finding that

Massachusetts had more likely than not

implemented an approvable enhanced I/

M program that was to take effect on

December 15, 1999. In that action EPA

said that the implementation of

sanctions will be deferred until EPA

takes final action on the I/M SIP.

Today EPA is taking final, full

approval of Massachusetts’ submitted

enhanced I/M program SIP revision.

Accordingly, all sanctions and FIP

clocks related to approval of

Massachusetts’ I/M program are

terminated upon the effective date of

today’s action.

VI. What Credit May Massachusetts

Assume in the Interim Until the

Correlation Study Is Complete?

In EPA’s supplementary proposed

rule on the Massachusetts I/M SIP

published on November 30, 1999 (64 FR

66829), EPA stated that there was no

data available at the time to assign the

exact emission reduction credit for the

combination of test type and equipment

that the Commonwealth was

implementing (i.e., a 31 second

transient test utilizing the BAR 31 trace

and NYTEST equipment). We did state

that, 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 compliance with

EPA’s performance standard for a low

enhanced program. We also

acknowledged that Massachusetts will

conduct necessary comparison testing to

determine the appropriate emission

reduction for SIP credit using the

combination of the BAR 31 transient

trace with NYTEST equipment and

stated that this would be important for

purposes of approving the ozone

attainment demonstration for the onehour ozone standard submitted by the

Commonwealth on July 27, 1998.

On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70319),

EPA proposed approval of the

Massachusetts attainment

demonstration for the Springfield

(Western Massachusetts) ozone

nonattainment area. EPA stated that

unless Massachusetts submitted a

demonstration which would

substantiate the level of credit claimed

for their I/M program, EPA would

disapprove the attainment

demonstration. Id. at 70329–30. In the

meantime, while Massachusetts has

pursued such a test program and has in

fact signed a work order to execute this

program, additional information has

become available which allows the

Agency to exercise engineering

judgement in estimating the credit level

of the MA31 test program. The MA 31

test program combines use of the

NYTEST equipment used in New York

with the BAR 31 test cycle used in

Oregon.

The additional information EPA has

received is a test program which

resulted in an evaluation of the

difference in effectiveness between

EPA’s IM240 equipment and NYTEST

equipment which is utilized by

Massachusetts. This test program

quantified the effectiveness of NYTEST

and granted it 95% of the IM240

hydrocarbon (HC) reduction credit and

99% of the IM240 reduction credit for

both carbon monoxide (CO) and

nitrogen oxides ( NOX).

In November 25, 1996, EPA had

quantified the BAR31 cycle currently

run in Oregon (OR31) as receiving 90%

of the IM240 HC credit and 95% of the

IM240 CO and NOX credit. Although the

OR31 uses the same cycle as the MA31

test, the OR31 employs IM240

equipment, which is more accurate than

the BAR97 equipment specified in the

MA31 test. Therefore, the credit

afforded the MA31 at this time has been

slightly reduced to reflect this

equipment discrepancy. The NYTEST

equipment analysis taken in concert

with the earlier information defining the

relationship between OR31 and IM240

cycles results in the Agency agreeing,

based on our best engineering judgment,

that the level of credit Massachusetts

needs to support their attainment

demonstration for their currently

operating I/M program is acceptable.

Massachusetts needs a level of credit

equivalent to ASM2 at final cut points.

The level of credit granted the MA31 as

compared to the IM240 is 85% for HC,

87% for CO and 85% for NOX.

At this time, EPA believes

Massachusetts will continue work on

two related but distinct efforts. The first

is to obtain and analyze MA31/IM240

correlation data, and the second is that

Massachusetts will also perform a

program evaluation to quantify the

emissions benefits achieved by the

program. EPA will review the

correlation data as well as the program

evaluation data, and take notice and

comment as appropriate on whether the

data bears out our current determination

with regard to the level of credit granted

to the program. If it does not, we will

take appropriate action to correct any

SIP shortfall.

VII. EPA Action

EPA is converting its limited approval

of Massachusetts’ enhanced I/M

program to a full approval. Accordingly,

all sanctions and FIP clocks related to

approval of Massachusetts’ I/M program

are terminated upon the effective date of

today’s action. An extensive discussion

of Massachusetts’ enhanced I/M

program and our rationale for our

limited approval action was provided in

the previous final rule for the

Massachusetts enhanced I/M program

approved at 40 CFR 52.1120(c)(122).

69256 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Additionally, we are also approving

an interim level of emission reduction

credit for the inspection and

maintenance program that can be

utilized by Massachusetts in attainment

planning.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective January

16, 2001 without further notice unless

the Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by December 18, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Any parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on January 16, 2001 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

Please note that if EPA receives

adverse comment on an amendment,

paragraph, or section of this rule and if

that provision may be severed from the

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt

as final those provisions of the rule that

are not the subject of an adverse

comment.

VIII. 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 (Pub. L. 104–4). For

the same reason, this rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

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

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

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. section 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.

Interested parties should comment in

response to the proposed rule rather

than petition for judicial review, unless

the objection arises after the comment

period allowed for in the proposal.

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).)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 222 / Thursday, November 16, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 69257

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 27, 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 52.1159 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.1159 Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance.

(a) Revisions submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on October

20, 2000, to the motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance program

are approved:

(1) Letter from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated October 20, 2000 submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(2) Document entitled ‘‘Quality

Assurance and Quality Control Plan For

the Massachusetts Enhanced Emissions

and Safety Inspection Program,’’ dated

October 16, 2000.

(3) Document entitled ‘‘Program

Evaluation Plans For the Enhanced

Inspection and Maintenance Program,’’

dated October 2000, and supporting

contracts.

[FR Doc. 00–29220 Filed 11–15–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P