Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2877

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040:February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this rule will

have a significant economic effect upon

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include small business,

not-for-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

as use of the anchorage area is

voluntary.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–221),

we offer to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they

could better evaluate its effects on them

and participate in the rulemaking

process. Small entities may contact the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT for assistance in

understanding and participating in this

rulemaking. We also have a point of

contact for commenting on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard. Small

businesses may send comments on the

actions of Federal employees who

enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13132 and have

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531—1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those unfunded mandate

costs. This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under E.O. 12630,

Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.

12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and

reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O.

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or safety

that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard, in association with

the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, considered

the environmental impact of this

proposed rule, and determined under

Figure 2–1, paragraph 34(f) of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C,

that this rule is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

Special anchorage areas.

Final Regulation

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard amends Part 110 of Title

33, Code of Federal Regulations, as

follows:

PART 110—[AMENDED]

1. The Authority citation for Part 110

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 2030, 2035, and

2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05–1(g).

Section 110.1a and each section listed in

110.1a is also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1223

and 1231.

2. Section 110.73c is added to read as

follows:

§ 110.73c. Okeechobee Waterway, St.

Lucie River, Stuart, FL.

The following is a special anchorage

area: Beginning on the Okeechobee

Intracoastal Waterway between mile

marker 7 and 8 on the St. Lucie River,

bounded by a line beginning at

27°12′06.583’’N, 80°15′33.447’’W;

thence to 27°12′07.811’’N,

80°15′38.861’’W; thence to

27°12′04.584’’N, 80°15′41.437’’W;

thence to 27°11′49.005’’N,

80°15′44.796’’W; thence to

27°11′47.881’’N, 80°15′38.271’’W;

thence to the point of beginning. All

coordinates reference Datum NAD:83.

Note: This area is principally used by

recreational vessels. The mooring of vessels

in this area is administered by the local

Harbormaster, City of Stuart, Florida.

Dated: January 10, 2000.

G.W. Sutton,

Captain U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Seventh Coast Guard District Acting.

[FR Doc. 00–1228 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–146–9934a; TN–156–9935a; FRL–6520–

2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Tennessee; Adoption of Rule

Governing Any Credible Evidence

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 16, 1994, the

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation submitted to EPA

revisions to the Nashville-Davidson

County Local Implementation Plan

(LIP). These revisions consisted of the

adoption of section 10.56.290

Measurement and Reporting of

Emissions amendments in the

Metropolitan/Nashville Code of Laws.

On May 3, 1995, the Tennessee

Department of Environment and

Conservation submitted to EPA

revisions to the Tennessee State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions consisted of the adoption of

Rule 1200–3–10–.04 Sampling,

Recording and Reporting Required For

Major Stationary Sources.

2878 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The adoptions of section 10.56.290

into the Nashville-Davidson County LIP

and Rule 1200–3–10–.04 into the

Tennessee SIP are being implemented to

meet the requirements of credible

evidence set forth in the May 23, 1994

SIP call letter.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on March 20, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by February 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: All comments should be

addressed to: Randy Terry at the EPA,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of the State submittal(s) are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington DC.

Department of Environment and

Conservation, 9th Floor L & C Annex,

401 Church St, Nashville, TN 37243–

1531

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Terry at the above Region 4

address or at 404–562–9032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:P=’04’≤

I. Background On Credible Evidence

II. Tennessee Response to Credible Evidence

III. EPA Review of Tennessee Response

I. Background On Credible Evidence

On October 22, 1993, the EPA

published a Federal Register document

proposing an Enhanced Monitoring

Program Rule. In that document, EPA

proposed both new regulations and

amendments to several existing air

pollution program regulations. To

address the revisions to the Clean Air

Act (CAA) regarding the use of any

credible evidence, EPA issued a SIP call

to all states in a letter dated May 23,

1994. The purpose of this letter was to

require the states to revise their SIP to

allow for the use of enhanced

monitoring as a means of establishing

compliance and ‘‘any credible

evidence’’ to prove violations. A Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) was to be

promulgated if the states failed to

correct the deficiencies in the SIP by

June 30, 1995. However, during the time

between which the Enhanced

Monitoring Program Rule was proposed

and the FIP was to be in place, EPA

separated the enhanced monitoring rule

into two new parts: ‘‘any credible

evidence’’ and ‘‘compliance assured

monitoring’’ (CAM); and promulgated

them in separate Federal Register

documents. The final rule for ‘‘any

credible evidence’’ was promulgated on

February 24, 1997.

II. Tennessee Response to Credible

Evidence

In response to the May 23, 1994, SIP

call, the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation

submitted SIP revisions on November

16, 1994 and May 15, 1995. These

revisions consisted of the addition of

section 10.56.290 Measurement and

Reporting of Emissions to chapter 10.56

of the Nashville-Davidson County

portion of the Tennessee SIP and the

addition of rule 1200–3–10–.04

Sampling, Recording, and Reporting

Required for Major Stationary Sources

to chapter 1200–3–10 Required

Sampling, Recording, and Reporting of

the Tennessee SIP.

Section 10.56.290 and Rule 1200–3–

10–.04 were created to ensure that

monitoring methods may include but

are not limited to: source testing, in

stack monitoring, process parameter

monitoring of material feed rates,

temperature, pressure differentials,

power consumption or fuel

consumption; chemical analysis of feed

stocks, coatings, or solvents; ambient

monitoring; visible emissions

evaluations; control equipment

performance parameters of pressure

differentials and any other such

monitoring that the Technical Secretary

may prescribe. In addition, all

monitoring (which includes, but is not

limited to sampling methods, analytical

methods, sensor locations and

frequency of sampling) must be

conducted in a manner acceptable to the

Technical Secretary. The monitoring

method must have at least a 95%

operational availability rate to prove

compliance directly or indirectly with

the applicable requirements unless

otherwise stipulated by the Technical

Secretary in the permit. Recordkeeping

can be handwritten or a computerized

record and shall be kept in accordance

with the manner approved by the

Technical Secretary. Reporting shall be

in the manner prescribed by the

Technical Secretary in the permit or

approved by him/her in the source’s

operating permit application.

III. EPA Review of Tennessee Response

After a thorough review of the

submittals, we found that the November

16, 1994, and May 15, 1995, submittals

are adequate to meet the credible

evidence requirements set forth in the

May 1994, SIP call. EPA is approving

these revisions because they are

consistent with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Final Action

The EPA is publishing this rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal 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 adverse comments be filed. This

rule will be effective March 20, 2000

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

February 18, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

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.

Parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time. If no such comments

are received, the public is advised that

this rule will be effective on March 20,

2000 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.

I. 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

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’’ is 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 2879

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final 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. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

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

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

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

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

2880 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 March 20, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: August 26, 1999.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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—RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2239 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(167) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2239 Original Identification of Plan

Section.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(167) The adoption of the credible

evidence regulations, which were

submitted on November 16, 1994, into

the Nashville/Davidson County portion

of the Tennessee SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Section

10.56.290 Measurement and Reporting

of Emissions effective on October 6,

1994.

(ii) Other material. None.

3. Section 52.2220(c) is amended by

adding the entry for section 1200–3–10–

.04 to read as follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) EPA approved regulations.

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject Adoption date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

*******

Section 1200–3–10–04 ...... Sampling Recording and

Reporting Required For

Major Stationary

Sources.

09/12/94 ............................ January 19, 2000 .............. [Insert citation of this Federal Register Notice

when published.]

*******

[FR Doc. 00–964 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FL–74–1–9941a; FRL–6524–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans, Florida:

Approval of Revisions to the Florida

State

Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to

the Florida State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted on December 26, 1996,

by the State of Florida through the

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (FDEP). This source-specific

revision amends the SIP to include a

variance granted to the Harry S. Truman

Animal Import Center (HSTAIC) for its

incinerator facility located in Monroe

County, Florida. The variance allows

HSTAIC to operate under the particulate

matter standard applicable to biological

waste combustion facilities.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

March 20, 2000, without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by February 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: All comments should be

addressed to Joey LeVasseur at the EPA,

Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303.

Copies of the state submittal are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air

Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104.

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection, Twin Towers Office

Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,

Tallahassee, Florida 32399–2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joey

LeVasseur at 404/562–9035 (E-mail:

levasseur.joey@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The State

of Florida through the FDEP submitted

a source-specific revision to the Florida

SIP for the HSTAIC on December 26,

1996. The HSTAIC is operated by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Services

and is located on Fleming Key on the

grounds of the Key West Naval Air

Station. The HSTAIC serves as a

quarantine station for animal herds

imported into the U.S. from foreign

countries and operates an incineration

facility for disposal of bedding material

and animal carcasses. In addition,

should a public health emergency occur,

the incinerator facility would be used to

cremate infected animal carcasses. Such

an emergency has never occurred in the

history of the Center.

Florida’s biological waste incinerator

rule includes standards applicable to

three categories of biological and

medical waste incinerators. The first

category, incinerators with a feed rate of

500 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) or less, is

subject to Rule 62–296(4)(a)1., which

includes emissions limiting standards

and operating requirements applicable

to medical waste incinerators and

animal crematories and has a particulate