Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23851

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. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

section 804(2). This rule will be

effective June 11, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by July 9, 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

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: January 19, 2001.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

Part 52, 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 HH—New York

2. Section 52.1683 is amended by

adding new paragraph (h) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1683 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(h)(1) The 1990 base year emission

inventory as revised on February 2,

1999 (Volatile organic compounds

(VOC), Nitrogen oxides (NOX) and

Carbon monoxide (CO) for areas

designated nonattainment for ozone

since 1991 in New York) is approved.

(2) The 1996 and 1999 ozone

projection year emission inventories

included in New York’s February 2,

1999 State Implementation Plan

revision for the New York portion of the

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island nonattainment area are approved.

(3) The 1996 and 1999 conformity

emission budgets for the New York

portion of the New York-Northern New

Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area

included in New York’s February 2,

1999 State Implementation Plan

revision are approved.

(4) The photochemical assessment

monitoring stations network included in

New York’s February 2, 1999 State

Implementation Plan revision is

approved.

(5) The demonstration that emissions

from growth in vehicle miles traveled

will not increase total motor vehicle

emissions and, therefore, offsetting

measures are not necessary, which was

included in New York’s February 2,

1999 State Implementation Plan

revision for the New York portion of the

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island nonattainment area is approved.

(6) The enforceable commitments to:

participate in the consultative process to

address regional transport; adopt

additional control measures as

necessary to attain the ozone standard,

meeting rate of progress requirements,

and eliminating significant contribution

to nonattainment downwind; identify

any reductions that are needed from

upwind areas for the area to meet the

ozone standard, included in New York’s

February 2, 1999 State Implementation

Plan revision for the New York portion

of the New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island nonattainment area are

approved.

(7) The 15 Percent Rate of Progress

Plan and the 9 Percent Reasonable

Further Progress Plan included in the

New York’s February 2, 1999 State

Implementation Plan revision for the

New York portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island

nonattainment area are approved.

[FR Doc. 01–11835 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Region 2 Docket No. NY46–217a, FRL–

6977–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans For Designated Facilities; NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the New

York supplementary submittal for

meeting EPA’s conditional approval of

the New York State Plan for regulating

existing MSW Landfills. The State Plan

establishes performance standards for

existing Municipal Solid Waste landfills

located in New York State and provides

for the implementation and enforcement

of those standards, which will reduce

the designated pollutants.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on July 9, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by June 11, 2001. If EPA receives such

comment, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief,

Air Programs Branch, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290

Broadway, New York, New York 10007–

1866.

Copies of the state submittals are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866.

New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division

of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,

New York 12233.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig Flamm, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

23852 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4021,

email: flamm.craig@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38582), EPA

conditionally approved the New York

State Plan for regulating existing

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Landfills. The reader is referred to the

July 19, 1999 rulemaking action for a

more detailed description and the

rationale of EPA’s conditional approval

of the New York MSW Landfills State

Plan. The conditional approval was

contingent on New York providing EPA

with modified Title V or State Operating

Permits containing compliance

schedules with all five increments of

progress outlined in Subpart Cc of 40

CFR part 60, the Emission Guidelines

for existing Municipal Solid Waste

Landfills. The permits were due within

one year of the effective date of the

conditional approval, September 17,

1999.

On September 18, 2000, the New York

State Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a

statement that NYSDEC inspected all

previously identified landfills in New

York that meet the criteria for a major

source. The NYSDEC identified one

landfill out of compliance and one

newly identified landfill which is

currently under review by the NSDEC

and which might require controls. The

NYSDEC stated that during the

inspections it was confirmed that the

rest of the landfills in question were in

compliance with New York’s State Plan

thereby making increments of progress

unnecessary for these landfills.

The two landfills that are not in

compliance currently are the Ontario

Landfill and the Babylon Landfill. EPA

received a timely Title V operating

permit with appropriate increments of

progress and compliance deadlines for

the Ontario Landfill. The Babylon

Landfill was discovered only recently

by NYSDEC, and EPA is confident that

the landfill was discovered in good faith

and that an appropriate applicability

determination will be completed in a

timely manner and a compliance

schedule with increments of progress

will be submitted to the EPA if they are

needed. All remaining landfills in New

York have met the requirements for all

five increments of progress. Should New

York identify any new Municipal Solid

Waste Landfills that meet the existing

landfill criteria and require controls,

New York shall submit increments of

progress for those facilities as well to

the EPA.

Conclusion

EPA has evaluated the Municipal

Solid Waste Landfill State Plan

submitted by New York for consistency

with the Act, EPA guidelines and

policy. EPA has determined that New

York’s State Plan contains all

approvable elements and critical

compliance dates. Therefore, EPA is

approving New York’s Plan to

implement and enforce 40 CFR Subpart

Cc, as it applies to existing MSW

Landfills.

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 State Plan

revision should adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective July 9,

2001 without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

June 11, 2001.

If the EPA receives adverse

comments, then EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that the

rule will not take effect. EPA will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this final action

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and therefore is not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This final 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 final 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 pre-existing 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 final 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 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 (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 final rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

In reviewing State Plan 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 State Plan submission

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a State Plan

submission, to use VCS in place of a

State Plan 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 final 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. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 23853

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major’’ rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2). This rule will be effective July 9,

2001.

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 July 9, 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 62

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Methane, Municipal solid

waste landfills, Nonmethane organic

compounds, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–11829 Filed 5–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD

INVESTIGATION BOARD

40 CFR Part 1611

Testimony by Employees in Legal

Proceedings

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends 40 CFR part

1611 (Testimony by Employees in Legal

Proceedings), published at 66 FR 17364

(March 30, 2001). Part 1611 provides the

Chemical Safety and Hazard

Investigation Board’s (CSB) policy

concerning testimony of CSB employees

in legal proceedings. This rule amends

§ 1611.2 (Definitions) to add a definition

of ‘‘employee’’ and amends § 1611.6

(Testimony of former CSB employees) to

add a requirement that former

employees notify the CSB General

Counsel when they are served with a

subpoena relating to work performed for

the CSB.

DATES: This rule is effective May 10,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Raymond C. Porfiri, (202) 261–7600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1)

Amendment to section 1611.2. The

current CSB rule on testimony by

employees in legal proceedings, 40 CFR

part 1611, published at 66 FR 17364

(March 30, 2001) does not define

‘‘employee.’’ The CSB has determined

that for the purpose of part 1611 (as well

as part 1612, ‘‘Production of Records in

Legal Proceedings’’) ‘‘employee’’ should

be defined to include all those who

undertake work for the CSB and who

may come into contact with protected

information. Thus ‘‘employee’’ is

defined to include: current or former

CSB Board Members or employees,

including student interns, and

contractors, contract employees, or

consultants (and their employees). But it

is made clear that this definition does

not include persons who are no longer

employed by or under contract to the

CSB, and who are retained or hired as

expert witnesses or agree to testify about

matters that do not involve their work

for the CSB.

Other agencies have included a

similarly broad definition of employee

for this purpose. See, e.g., Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR

388.111; Department of State, 22 CFR

172.1; USAID, 22 CFR 206.1; Overseas

Private Investment Corporation, 22 CFR

713.10; Department of the Navy, 32 CFR

725.4; and U.S. Postal Service, 39 CFR

265.13. Moreover, CSB contractors are

already required to sign non-disclosure

agreements, prohibiting them from

disclosing in any forum (except to CSB

employees) trade secret or confidential

business information obtained in their

work for the CSB.

The need for this broad definition of

employee is even more necessary at the

CSB because, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

7412(r)(6)(G), no part of the conclusions,

findings or recommendations of the CSB

relating to an accidental release or the

investigation thereof, may be admitted

as evidence or used in any suit or action

for damages growing out of any matter

mentioned in such report.

(2) Amendment to section 1611.6. The

current rule pertaining to former

employees is clarified to include a

requirement that any former employee

who is served with a subpoena to

appear and testify in connection with

civil litigation that relates to his or her

work with the CSB, shall immediately

notify the CSB General Counsel and

provide all information requested by the

General Counsel. This clarification is

necessary to give notice to former

employees of their obligation in this

regard, and to provide the agency with

advance notice of a potential problem.

Public Comment Procedures: Because

this rule amends an internal policy for

CSB employees, the Administrative

Procedure Act does not require that it be

published as a proposed regulation for

notice and public comment. See 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(2). This rule provides

immediate clarifying guidance

pertaining to CSB employee testimony.

As such, the CSB finds that good cause

exists for making the regulation effective

immediately upon publication. See 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.

12866)

This regulation is not a significant

rule and is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

(1) This regulation will not have an

effect of $100 million or more on the

economy. This regulation regulates how

and when CSB employee testimony may

be provided in certain situations. As

such, it will not adversely affect in a

material way the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or Tribal governments or communities.

(2) This regulation will not create a

serious inconsistency or interfere with

an action taken or planned by another

agency.

(3) This regulation does not alter the

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights

or obligations of their recipients.

(4) This regulation is consistent with

well-established constitutional and

statutory principles and does not raise

novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The CSB certifies that this regulation

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This

regulation merely regulates how and

when CSB employees may testify in

certain situations.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This regulation is not a major rule

under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act. Because this regulation

only regulates how and when CSB

employees may testify in certain

situations, this regulation:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, Federal, State,

local government agencies or geographic

regions.