68896 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2000 Archer Western Contractors,

representatives of the owner, requested

a deviation from the current operating

regulation in 33 CFR 117.35 which

requires the drawbridge to open

promptly and fully when a request to

open is given. This temporary deviation

was requested to allow necessary repairs

to the drawbridge.

The District Commander has granted

a temporary deviation from the

operating requirements listed in 33 CFR

117.35 for the purpose of safely

completing repairs. Under this

deviation, the Boynton Beach Boulevard

Drawbridge (S.R. 804) need only open a

single leaf, with a four hour advanced

notice for a double leaf opening. The

deviation is effective from November 14,

2000 until December 31, 2000.

Dated: November 7, 2000.

G.E. Shapley,

Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast

Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–29104 Filed 11–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–25–7197a; A–1–FRL–6882–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; Rate-of-Progress

Emission Reduction Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. The revision establishes

15 percent and post-1996 rate-ofprogress (ROP) plans for the Springfield

Massachusetts serious ozone

nonattainment area. The intended effect

of this action is to approve this SIP

revision as meeting the requirements of

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; and the Division of

Air Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter

Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. McConnell, (617) 918–1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Are the 1990 emission estimates used in

the ROP calculations consistent with those

approved in the base year inventory?

C. What are the Springfield area’s 1999

emission target levels?

D. What is the status of the

Commonwealth’s I/M program?

E. When is the Commonwealth expected to

meet its 1999 emission target levels?

F. Has Massachusetts revised its Stage II

regulation?

G. Has the Commonwealth submitted a

contingency plan?

H. What are the current conformity budgets

for the Springfield area?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving 15 percent and post96 ROP plans submitted by the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the

Springfield serious ozone

nonattainment area. On September 27,

1999 (64 FR 51944), EPA published a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. The NPR proposed

approval of these ROP plans. A

supplementary proposed rule was

published on November 30, 1999 (64 FR

66829) that provided additional

information on the automobile

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program to be used in Massachusetts

and the timing of 15% and 9% ROP

plan reductions. The formal SIP revision

was submitted by Massachusetts on

April 1, 1999, and amended on June 25,

1999, and September 9, 1999.

B. Are the 1990 Emission Estimates

Used in the ROP Calculations

Consistent With Those Approved in the

Base Year Inventory?

The 1990 base year inventory found

in the ROP plans for the Western

Massachusetts area matches the base

year inventory for this area EPA

approved in the July 14, 1997 Federal

Register (62 FR 37510), with one

exception. The NOX emission estimate

for non-road engines approved in the

July 14, 1997 Federal Register

document was 19.9 tons per summer

day (tpsd); this value was lowered to 17

tpsd in the inventory used in the

Springfield area’s ROP target emission

level calculations. EPA’s discussions

with Massachusetts indicate that the 17

tpsd estimate used in the ROP plans is

incorrect. On September 15, 2000

Massachusetts submitted a letter to EPA

confirming that 19.9 tpsd is the correct

NOX non-road base year emission

estimate for the Springfield area, and

submitted a revised target level

calculation utilizing the correct value,

19.9 tpsd.

C. What Are the Springfield Area’s

1999 Emission Target Levels?

The 1999 emission target levels for

the Springfield area are 115 tpsd for

VOC, and 100 tpsd for NOX. The States’

projected, controlled emissions for 1999

are both expected to equal the 1999

emission target levels for VOC and NOX.

D. What Is the Status of the

Commonwealth’s I/M Program?

The Commonwealth began its

automobile I/M program on October 1,

1999, but experienced routine start-up

difficulties which required that full

enforcement of the program be delayed

for two and one half months. The

Commonwealth began fully enforcing

the I/M program on December 15, 1999.

In a separate action in the rules

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA

is publishing a limited approval for the

Commonwealth’s I/M program. EPA has

considered whether the ROP plans

should also receive limited approval

and determined that full approval of the

ROP plans is more appropriate.

Essentially, the issues that cause EPA to

limit its approval of the I/M program

have no impact on achieving the

reductions necessary to support these

ROP plans. The Commonwealth began

fully enforcing its motor vehicle

emissions testing program on December

15, 1999, and has continued to operate

the program since that time without

encountering major difficulties. It is the

testing of motor vehicles and

subsequent requirement that high

polluting vehicles be repaired to emit

less pollution that achieves the emission

reductions attributable to automobile

I/M programs. The reason EPA is not

granting full approval of the

Commonwealth’s I/M program pertain

to requirements that Massachusetts fully

document that the I/M program

complies with the provisions of section

182(c)(3) of the CAA. Achievement of

these conditions, although necessary for

full approval of the I/M program, are not

prerequisite to achieving the relatively

low level of emission reductions from

the program on which these ROP plans

rely. The I/M program as currently

implemented, and which is fully

enforceable in the SIP pursuant to our

limited approval, is accomplishing the

minimal emission reductions needed to

support the ROP plans, and therefore

full approval of the ROP plans is

appropriate.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 68897

E. When Is the Commonwealth

Expected To Meet Its 1999 Emission

Target Levels?

EPA believes that it is unlikely the

Commonwealth met its emission target

levels by November 15, 1999, but that it

now meets these emission levels.

The EPA’s September 27, 1999

proposed approval of the

Commonwealth’s ROP plans noted that

these plans relied, to a small degree, on

the emission reductions from the I/M

program scheduled to begin on October

1, 1999. However, the delayed

enforcement of this program described

above, and more conservative

assumptions of the amount of credit

derived from the program that

Massachusetts is implementing as noted

in the November 30, 1999

supplementary proposed rule, delayed

the achievement of the emission

reductions expected from this program.

Based on the amount of vehicles subject

to emission testing each month once the

Commonwealth began enforcing this

program on December 15, 1999, EPA

believes the estimated reductions from

I/M needed for the 15 percent and post96 ROP plans were achieved and

surpassed by the end of April, 2000,

prior to the beginning of the ozone

season. EPA believes that these

reductions were achieved as

expeditiously as practicable and that no

other reasonable emissions control

strategy would have allowed the

Commonwealth or EPA to achieve these

reductions sooner.

F. Has Massachusetts Revised Its Stage

II Regulation?

EPA’s September 27 , 1999 proposed

approval of the Commonwealth’s ROP

plans noted compliance issues

associated with this rule. Massachusetts

committed, in its one hour ozone

attainment demonstration submittal, to

address these issues by modifying its

Stage II regulation to enhance the

compliance assurance mechanisms

designed into the rule. Massachusetts

held a public hearing on its proposed

revisions to its Stage II, gasoline vapor

recovery regulation on January 20, 2000.

The Commonwealth submitted the

revised Stage II rule to EPA for parallel

processing on August 9, 2000, and EPA

proposed approval of this rule on

August 21, 2000 (65 FR 50669). When

EPA acts on the attainment

demonstration, we will evaluate

whether Massachusetts has adequately

addressed the compliance issues

associated with this rule. Enforcement

of the Stage II rule currently approved

in the SIP supports these ROP plans.

G. Has the Commonwealth Submitted a

Contingency Plan?

Massachusetts has not submitted a

contingency plan. Sections 172(c)(9)

and 182(c)(9) of the federal Clean Air

Act (CAA) require that contingency

measures be implemented if an area

misses an ozone SIP milestone, or does

not attain the NAAQS by the applicable

date. Massachusetts has not met its

obligation to submit a contingency plan

for the Springfield serious

nonattainment area.

H. What Are the Current Conformity

Budgets for the Springfield Area?

The Commonwealth’s revised ROP

plans contain motor vehicle emission

budgets for the year 1999. However, the

Massachusetts DEP submitted an ozone

attainment demonstration plan to EPA

in 1998 that contains mobile source

emission budgets for Western

Massachusetts for 2003. Since the year

2003 budgets are more restrictive, cover

a time frame later than the ROP plans

(which include the current

transportation analyses milestone

years), and are based on the attainment

plan, these 2003 VOC and NOX budgets

take precedence over motor vehicle

emission budgets for earlier years. The

specific 2003 budgets for the Springfield

area are 23.770 tpsd for VOC, and

49.110 tpsd for NOX.

Other specific requirements of the

ROP plans 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 approving rate-of-progress

emission reduction plans for the

Springfield, Massachusetts ozone

nonattainment area as a revision to the

Massachusetts SIP. These plans meet

the requirements of sections 182(b)(1)

and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

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

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

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