32556 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

REGION VIII.—DELEGATION STATUS OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 1

Subpart CO MT ND 2 SD 2 UT 2 WY

*******

* Indicates approval of delegation of subpart to state.

1Authorities which may not be delegated include 40 CFR 61.04(b), 61.12(d)(1), 61.13(h)(1)(ii), 61.112(c), 61.164(a)(2), 61.164(a)(3),

61.172(b)(2)(ii)(B), 61.172(b)(2)(ii)(C), 61.174(a)(2), 61.174(a)(3), 61.242–1(c)(2), 61.244, and all authorities listed as not delegable in each subpart under Delegation of Authority. 2 Indicates approval of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) with the exception of the radionuclide NESHAP subparts B, Q, R, T, W which were approved through section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act. 3 Delegation only for asbestos demolition, renovation, spraying, manufacturing, and fabricating operations, insulating materials, waste disposal

for demolition, renovation, spraying, manufacturing and fabricating operations, inactive waste disposal sites for manufacturing and fabricating operations, and operations that convert asbestos-containing waste material into nonasbestos (asbestos-free) material.

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671.

Subpart BB—Montana

2. Add a new and undesignated center

heading and § 62.6613 to subpart BB to

read as follows:

Fluoride Emissions From Existing

Phosphate Fertilizer Plants

§ 62.6613 Identification of plan—negative

declaration.

The Montana Department of

Environmental Quality certified in a

letter dated February 14, 2001, that

there are no phosphate fertilizer plants

in Montana that meet the definition of

affected facility under any of the

subparts T, U, V, W or X. Additionally,

there are no phosphate fertilizer plants

in Montana that meet the definition of

affected facility under any of the

subparts T, U, V, W, or X, constructed

before October 22, 1974, and that have

not reconstructed or modified since

1974.

[FR Doc. 01–15027 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CO–001–0058a, CO–001–0059a;

FRL–6989–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air

Quality Planning Purposes, Telluride

and Pagosa Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Colorado on

May 10, 2000, for the purpose of

redesignating the Telluride, Colorado

and Pagosa Springs, Colorado areas from

nonattainment to attainment for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter less than or equal to a nominal

10 micrometers (PM10) under the 1987

standards. The Colorado Air Pollution

Control Division’s (Colorado) submittal,

among other things, documents that the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas have

attained the PM10 national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS), requests

redesignation to attainment and

includes a maintenance plan for each of

the areas demonstrating maintenance of

the PM10 NAAQS for ten years. EPA is

approving these redesignation requests

and maintenance plans because

Colorado has met the applicable

requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended. Upon the effective

date of this approval, the Telluride and

Pagosa Springs areas will be designated

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. This

action is being taken under sections 107,

110, and 175A of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August

14, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comment by July

16, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air

and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P–

AR, Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air and Radiation Program,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300,

Denver, Colorado, 80202 and copies of

the Incorporation by Reference material

are available at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the State documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection at the Colorado Department

of Public Health and Environment, Air

Pollution Control Division, 4300 Cherry

Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado

80246–1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Megan Williams, EPA, Region VIII, (303)

312–6431.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA).

Table of Contents

I. EPA’s Final Action

What Action Is EPA Taking in This Direct

Final Rule?

II. Summary of Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be Followed

for Redesignations to Attainment?

B. Do the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA

Requirements?

C. Have the Transportation Conformity

Requirements Been Met?

D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper

Procedures for Adopting this Action?

III. Background

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA’s Final Action

What Action Is EPA Taking in this

Direct Final Rule?

We are approving the Governor’s

submittal of May 10, 2000, that requests

redesignation for the Telluride and

Pagosa Springs nonattainment areas to

attainment for the 1987 PM10 standards.

Included in Colorado’s submittal are

changes to the Ambient Air Quality

Standards Regulation and State

Implementation Plan Specific

Regulations for Nonattainment—

Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local

Elements) Regulation (SIP Specific

Regulation) which we are approving,

under section 110 of the CAA, into

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32557

Colorado’s SIP. We are also approving

the maintenance plans for the Telluride

and Pagosa Springs PM10 nonattainment

areas, which were submitted with

Colorado’s May 10, 2000 redesignation

requests. We are approving these

requests and maintenance plans because

Colorado has adequately addressed all

of the requirements of the CAA for

redesignation to attainment applicable

to the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

PM10 nonattainment areas. Upon the

effective date of this action, the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas’

designation status under 40 CFR part 81

will be revised to attainment.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the ‘‘Proposed

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve the SIP revision

if adverse comments be filed. This rule

will be effective August 14, 2001

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

July 16, 2001. If the EPA receives

adverse comments, 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.

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.

II. Summary of Redesignation Request

and Maintenance Plan

A. What Requirements Must Be

Followed for Redesignations to

Attainment?

In order for a nonattainment area to be

redesignated to attainment, the

following conditions in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met:

(i) We must determine that the area

has attained the NAAQS;

(ii) The applicable implementation

plan for the area must be fully approved

under section 110(k) of the CAA;

(iii) We must determine that the

improvement in air quality is due to

permanent and enforceable reductions

in emissions resulting from

implementation of the applicable

implementation plan and applicable

Federal air pollutant control regulations

and other permanent and enforceable

reductions;

(iv) We must fully approve a

maintenance plan for the area as

meeting the requirements of CAA

section 175A; and,

(v) The State containing such an area

must meet all requirements applicable

to the area under section 110 and part

D of the CAA.

Our September 4, 1992 guidance

entitled ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to

Attainment’’ outlines how to assess the

adequacy of redesignation requests

against the conditions listed above.

On May 10, 2000, the Governor of

Colorado submitted a revision to the SIP

for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

area and a request that we redesignate

these areas to attainment for PM10. The

following is a brief discussion of how

Colorado’s redesignation requests and

maintenance plans meet the

requirements of the CAA for

redesignation of the Telluride and

Pagosa Springs areas to attainment for

PM10.

B. Do the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

Redesignation Requests and

Maintenance Plans Meet the CAA

Requirements?

1. Attainment of the PM10 NAAQS

A state must demonstrate that an area

has attained the PM10 NAAQS through

submittal of ambient air quality data

from an ambient air monitoring network

representing maximum PM10

concentrations. The data, which must be

quality assured and recorded in the

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS), must show that the

average annual number of expected

exceedances for the area is less than or

equal to 1.0, pursuant to 40 CFR 50.6.

In making this showing, the three most

recent years of complete air quality data

must be used.

Colorado operates one PM10

monitoring site in the Telluride PM10

nonattainment area. Colorado submitted

ambient air quality data from the

monitoring site which demonstrate that

the area has attained the PM10 NAAQS.

These air quality data were qualityassured and placed in AIRS. An

exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS

was recorded in 1994 and 1999 but

neither exceedance resulted in a

violation of the standard (i.e., the 3-year

average of estimated exceedances

remained below 1.0 per year). These two

were the only recorded exceedances

since PM10 monitoring began in

Telluride in 1987. The annual PM10

NAAQS has never been exceeded in

Telluride. The three most recent years of

data for the area (1997–1999) are

complete (i.e., data are available for at

least 75% of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter) with no recorded

violations. We believe that Colorado has

adequately demonstrated, through

ambient air quality data, that the PM10

NAAQS have been attained in the

Telluride area.

Colorado also operates one PM10

monitoring site in the Pagosa Springs

PM10 nonattainment area. Colorado

submitted ambient air quality data from

the monitoring site which demonstrate

that the area has attained the PM10

NAAQS. These air quality data were

quality assured and placed in AIRS.

Two exceedances of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS were measured on December 21

and again on December 29, 1994.

However, the 3-year average of

estimated exceedances remained below

1.0 (per year) and therefore did not

result in a violation of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS. The three most recent years of

data for the area (1997–1999) are

complete (i.e., data are available for at

least 75% of the scheduled PM10

samples per quarter) with no recorded

violations. While the area recently

recorded an exceedance of the 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS on June 12, 2000, this

exceedance did not result in a violation

of the standard and, thus, the area is

still eligible for redesignation to

attainment. The annual PM10 NAAQS

has never been exceeded in Pagosa

Springs. We believe that Colorado has

adequately demonstrated, through

ambient air quality data, that the PM10

NAAQS have been attained in the

Pagosa Springs area.

2. State Implementation Plan Approval

Those States containing initial

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas

were required by the 1990 amendments

to the CAA to submit a SIP by

November 15, 1991 which demonstrated

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by

December 31, 1994. To approve a

redesignation request, the SIP for the

area must be fully approved under

section 110(k) and must satisfy all

requirements that apply to that area. We

partially/conditionally approved the

PM10 SIP for Telluride on September 19,

1994 (59 FR 47807) and fully approved

it, with the adoption of new street

sanding requirements, on October 4,

1996 (61 FR 51784). We approved the

PM10 SIP for Pagosa Springs on May 19,

1994 (59 FR 26126). These PM10 SIPs for

Telluride and Pagosa Springs were

approved as meeting the moderate PM10

nonattainment plan requirements that

were due to EPA on November 15, 1991.

32558 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

3. Improvement in Air Quality Due to

Permanent and Enforceable Measures

A state must be able to reasonably

attribute the improvement in air quality

to emission reductions which are

permanent and enforceable. The

primary sources of PM10 emissions in

the Telluride area are re-entrained road

dust (from highways, paved roads, chip

sealed roads, and unpaved roads) and

woodburning. In the mid-1980’s,

Colorado adopted emission standards

for all new woodburning stoves and

fireplace inserts in Air Quality Control

Commission Regulation No. 4. These

regulations were most recently

approved by us into the SIP on August

24, 1994. In addition, the town of

Telluride and San Miguel County have

adopted wood and coal burning

emission reduction measures which: (1)

Require the installation of cleanerburning devices in existing dwellings

which have pre-existing solid fuel

burning devices; (2) prohibit solid fuel

burning devices in new construction; (3)

ban coal burning; and (4) limit the total

number of fireplaces and woodstoves in

the nonattainment area. These wood

and coal burning controls were adopted

and implemented throughout the 1980’s

and 1990’s and were approved by EPA

into the SIP in 1994. In addition,

Telluride has adopted street sanding

controls that require the use of street

sanding material containing less than

‘‘two percent fines’’ (i.e., two percent of

the material passing through a #200

sieve as determined by the American

Society for Testing Materials ‘‘Standard

Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and

Coarse Aggregates’’, designation C136–

84a (1988)). This control strategy was

adopted in 1994 and approved by EPA

in 1996. Colorado submitted revisions to

their SIP Specific Regulation that

change the recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for street sanding in

Telluride. These changes eliminate

irrelevant recordkeeping requirements

and require users to retain records for 2

years instead of annually submitting

reports to the State. Since these changes

in recordkeeping and reporting

requirements do not change the

enforceability of the street sanding

control measures in Telluride, we are

approving the changes into the SIP. In

addition to these State and local control

measures, the Federal Motor Vehicle

Emission Control Program has reduced

PM10 emissions in Telluride as older,

higher emitting diesel vehicles are

replaced with newer vehicles that meet

tighter emission standards. Overall,

despite growth in the Telluride

nonattainment area (e.g., in population,

employment and vehicle miles traveled)

since 1990, attainment of the PM10

NAAQS has been demonstrated. We

have evaluated the various control

measures, in addition to the 1996

attainment year emission inventory and

the projected emissions described

below, and have concluded that the

continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS in the Telluride area has

resulted from emission reductions that

are permanent and enforceable.

The primary source of PM10 emissions

in the Pagosa Springs area is reentrained road dust (from highways,

paved roads, gravel roads, and dirt

roads). The Town of Pagosa Springs

paved 6.5 miles of unpaved roads in

1992, 1993 and 1994 in order to reduce

PM10 emissions. In addition, Pagosa

Springs has adopted street sanding

controls that require the use of street

sanding material containing less than

‘‘one percent fines’’ (i.e., one percent of

the material passing through a #200

sieve as determined by the American

Society for Testing Materials ‘‘Standard

Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and

Coarse Aggregates’’, designation C136–

84a (1988)). Users of street sand on

Highway 160 and Highway 84 must also

use 15 percent less sand than an

established base sanding amount. These

sanding controls were adopted in 1992

and approved by EPA in 1994. Colorado

submitted revisions to their SIP Specific

Regulation that change the reporting

requirements for street sanding in

Pagosa Springs. These changes

eliminate the road paving control

measure that was completed in 1994

and require users to retain records for 2

years instead of annually submitting

reports to the State. Since these changes

in reporting requirements do not change

the enforceability of the current street

sanding control measures in Pagosa

Springs, we are approving the changes

into the SIP. In addition to these State

and local control measures, the Federal

Motor Vehicle Emission Control

Program has reduced PM10 emissions in

Pagosa Springs as older, higher emitting

diesel vehicles are replaced with newer

vehicles that meet tighter emission

standards. Overall, despite growth in

the Pagosa Springs nonattainment area

(e.g., in population and sales tax

revenue), attainment of the PM10

NAAQS has been demonstrated. We

have evaluated the various control

measures, in addition to the 1997

attainment year emission inventory and

the projected emissions described

below, and have concluded the

continued attainment of the PM10

NAAQS in the Pagosa Springs area has

resulted from emission reductions that

are permanent and enforceable.

4. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

Under Section 175A of the CAA

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

requires that, for a nonattainment area

to be redesignated to attainment, we

must fully approve a maintenance plan

which meets the requirements of section

175A of the CAA. The plan must

demonstrate continued attainment of

the relevant NAAQS in the area for at

least 10 years after our approval of the

redesignation. Eight years after our

approval of a redesignation, Colorado

must submit a revised maintenance plan

demonstrating attainment for the 10

years following the initial 10 year

period. The maintenance plan must also

contain a contingency plan to ensure

prompt correction of any violation of

the NAAQS. (See sections 175A(b) and

(d).) Our September 4, 1992 guidance

outlines 5 core elements that are

necessary to ensure maintenance of the

relevant NAAQS in an area seeking

redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment. Those elements, as well as

guidelines for subsequent maintenance

plan revisions, are as follows:

a. Attainment Inventory. The

maintenance plan should include an

attainment emission inventory to

identify the level of emissions in the

area which is sufficient to attain the

NAAQS. An emission inventory for

Telluride was developed for the

attainment year (1996). The inventory

was based on the 1991 base year

inventory approved by us in 1996 and

includes emissions from wood and coal

burning, restaurants, aircraft, a

stationary source, mobile exhaust and

re-entrained dust from paved and

unpaved roads. Emissions were updated

to reflect the latest emission factors,

device counts (for stoves/fireplaces),

traffic estimates and also to reflect the

road paving that has occurred in the

area.

An emission inventory for Pagosa

Springs was developed for the

attainment year (1997). The inventory

was based on the 1988 base year

inventory approved by us in 1994 and

includes emissions from wood and coal

burning, mobile exhaust and reentrained dust from paved and unpaved

roads. Emissions were updated to reflect

the latest emission factors and traffic

estimates as well as the road paving and

street sand controls that have occurred

in the area.

Colorado conducted silt loading

studies during the spring of 1997 in

Telluride and Pagosa Springs to update

the road dust emission factors used in

the inventories. The revised emission

factors for road dust used in the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32559

inventories reflect the control measures

that are in place in these areas and

include the street sanding controls as

well as voluntary street sweeping.

Colorado adjusted the emission factors

to account for a lack of sanding during

the 1997 study period. However, no

adjustment was made to account for the

voluntary street sweeping that may have

occurred. Since the voluntary street

sweeping is not an enforceable control

measure in the PM10 SIPs for these

areas, an additional adjustment to the

road dust emission factors must be

taken into consideration in our review.

If the voluntary street sweeping had

been suspended for the duration of the

silt loading studies, PM10 emission

projections would likely increase no

more than 2% in Telluride and 3% in

Pagosa Springs. Based on these

estimates, the areas would still be able

to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-

hour NAAQS. Thus, we believe

Colorado has prepared adequate

attainment inventories for the Telluride

and Pagosa Springs areas.

b. Maintenance Demonstration. A

state may generally demonstrate

maintenance of the NAAQS by either

showing that future emissions of a

pollutant or its precursors will not

exceed the level of the attainment

inventory, or by modeling to show that

the future mix of sources and emission

rates will not cause a violation of the

NAAQS. Colorado chose the modeling

approach for both Telluride and Pagosa

Springs.

The maintenance demonstration for

both the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

areas uses the chemical mass balance

(CMB) roll-forward methodology, which

is the same level of modeling used in

the original attainment demonstrations

for the moderate PM10 SIPs for these

areas. The CMB receptor model data are

used to identify the sources of emissions

that influence PM10 concentrations in

the area. Colorado used the attainment

inventories to further refine the CMB

source identification for each area and

then apportion the design day

concentration. The design day

concentration was determined using

EPA’s ‘‘Table look-up’’ method. Based

on the number of samples collected

during a three year period from 1996—

1998 (934 samples in Telluride and

1025 samples in Pagosa Springs), the

third highest concentration measured

during that period is used as the design

value: 101 μg/m3 for Telluride and 89

μg/m3 for Pagosa Springs. Colorado

prepared a maintenance inventory for

the year 2012 for each area and rolled

forward the design day concentration

based on the changes that occurred in

the emission inventory from the

attainment year to the maintenance

year. Based on this process, the

Telluride 2012 maintenance

concentration is 147 μg/m3 and the

Pagosa Springs 2012 maintenance

concentration is 121 μg/m3. Since these

2012 projections for Telluride and

Pagosa Springs are below the 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS, maintenance is

demonstrated.

Although EPA would normally insist

on some interim year projections

between the attainment year and 2012,

we have no reason to believe that total

emissions will be greater than the 2012

projections in any of the interim years.

Colorado applied simple,

environmentally conservative, growth

rates to all source categories other than

stationary sources. The stationary

source in the Telluride inventory was

projected at maximum allowable

emissions. Thus, total emissions in all

years before 2012 should be less than

2012 total emissions and no interim

year projections are required.

Since no violations of the annual

PM10 NAAQS have ever occurred in

Telluride or Pagosa Springs and since

the maintenance demonstration clearly

shows maintenance of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS in these areas through the year

2012, it is reasonable and adequate to

assume that protection of the 24-hour

standard will be sufficient to protect the

annual standard as well. Thus, EPA

believes Colorado has adequately

demonstrated that the Telluride and

Pagosa Springs areas will maintain the

PM10 NAAQS for at least the next ten

years.

c. Monitoring Network. Once a

nonattainment area has been

redesignated to attainment, the State

must continue to operate an appropriate

air quality monitoring network, in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to

verify the attainment status of the area.

The maintenance plan should contain

provisions for continued operation of air

quality monitors that will provide such

verification. Colorado operates one PM10

monitoring site in the Telluride area and

one in the Pagosa Springs area. We

approve these sites annually, and any

future change would require discussion

with, and approval from, us. In their

May 10, 2000 submittal, Colorado

committed to continue to operate these

PM10 monitoring stations in Telluride

and Pagosa Springs, in accordance with

40 CFR part 58.

d. Verification of Continued

Attainment. A state’s maintenance plan

submittal should indicate how it will

track the progress of the maintenance

plan. This is necessary due to the fact

that the emission projections made for

the maintenance demonstration depend

on assumptions of point and area source

growth. Colorado commits to analyze

the monitoring data in Telluride and

Pagosa Springs to verify continued

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.

Additionally, in a letter dated January

24, 2001, from Margie Perkins, Director,

Colorado Air Pollution Control Division,

to Richard Long, Director, EPA Region

VIII Air and Radiation Program,

Colorado commits to reviewing

inventory assumptions (i.e., emission

factors, actual or projected population

growth and growth in vehicle miles

traveled, etc.) on a 3-year basis. EPA

relies on this commitment in approving

the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

maintenance plans and the abovereferenced letter is archived as

Additional Materials in 40 CFR

52.320(c)(90)(ii).

e. Contingency Plan. Section 175A(d)

of the CAA requires that a maintenance

plan also include contingency

provisions, as necessary, to promptly

correct any violation of the NAAQS that

occurs after redesignation of the area.

For the purposes of section 175A, a state

is not required to have fully adopted

contingency measures that will take

effect without further action by the State

in order for the maintenance plan to be

approved. However, the contingency

plan is an enforceable part of the SIP

and should ensure that contingency

measures are adopted expeditiously

once they are triggered. The plan should

discuss the measures to be adopted and

a schedule and procedure for adoption

and implementation. The State should

also identify the specific indicators, or

triggers, which will be used to

determine when the contingency plan

will be implemented.

The Telluride and Pagosa Springs

contingency plans will be triggered

upon our determination that a PM10

NAAQS violation has occurred in

Telluride or Pagosa Springs. The

Telluride and Pagosa Springs

contingency plans provide that, within

six months of our determination that a

violation has occurred, Colorado and

the local government staff in the area

will develop appropriate contingency

measure(s) intended to prevent or

correct a violation of the PM10 standard.

If a violation of the PM10 NAAQS has

occurred, a public hearing process at the

State and local level will begin. If the

Colorado Air Quality Control

Commission (AQCC) agrees that the

implementation of local measures will

prevent further exceedances or

violations, the AQCC may approve of

the local measures without adopting

State requirements. If, however, the

AQCC finds locally adopted

contingency measures to be inadequate,

32560 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the AQCC will adopt State enforceable

measures as deemed necessary to

prevent additional exceedances or

violations. Any State-enforceable

measures will become part of the next

revised maintenance plan, submitted to

us for approval.

Potential contingency measures for

the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas

include: transportation control measures

designed to reduce vehicle miles

traveled, increased street sweeping,

additional road paving, more stringent

street sand specifications, voluntary or

mandatory woodburning bans,

expanded use of alternative de-icers, reestablishing nonattainment new source

review permitting requirements for

stationary sources, or other measures as

deemed appropriate.

The Telluride and Pagosa Springs

contingency plans provide that the

contingency measures will be adopted

and fully implemented within one year

of a PM10 NAAQS violation.

f. Subsequent Maintenance Plan

Revisions. In accordance with section

175A(b) of the CAA, the State of

Colorado is required to submit a

revision to the maintenance plan eight

years after the redesignation of the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas to

attainment for PM10. This revision is to

provide for maintenance of the NAAQS

for an additional ten years following the

first ten year period. Colorado

committed, in the Telluride and Pagosa

Springs redesignation requests, to

submit a revised maintenance plan, for

each area, to EPA no later than

December 31, 2008.

5. Meeting Applicable Requirements of

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA

In order for an area to be redesignated

to attainment, section 107(d)(3)(E)

requires that it must have met all

applicable requirements of section 110

and part D of the CAA. We interpret this

to mean that, for a redesignation request

to be approved, the State must have met

all requirements that applied to the

subject area prior to, or at the time of,

submitting a complete redesignation

request. In our evaluation of a

redesignation request, we don’t need to

consider other requirements of the CAA

that became due after the date of the

submission of a complete redesignation

request.

a. Section 110 Requirements. Section

110(a)(2) contains general requirements

for nonattainment plans. For purposes

of redesignation, the Colorado SIP was

reviewed to ensure that all applicable

requirements under the amended CAA

were satisfied. These requirements were

met for Telluride with Colorado’s March

17, 1993 and April 22, 1996 submittals

for the Telluride PM10 nonattainment

area. We provided full approval of the

Telluride SIP Element on October 4,

1996 (61 FR 51784). The section

110(a)(2) requirements were met for

Pagosa Springs with Colorado’s

February 24, 1993 and December 9,

1993 submittals for the Pagosa Springs

PM10 nonattainment area. We approved

these submittals on May 19, 1994 (59 FR

26126).

b. Part D Requirements. Before a PM10

nonattainment area may be redesignated

to attainment, the State must have

fulfilled the applicable requirements of

part D. Subpart 1 of part D establishes

the general requirements applicable to

all nonattainment areas, subpart 4 of

part D establishes specific requirements

applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas.

The requirements of sections 172(c)

and 189(a) regarding attainment of the

PM10 NAAQS, and the requirements of

section 172(c) regarding reasonable

further progress, imposition of

Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM), the adoption of contingency

measures, and the submission of an

emission inventory, have been satisfied

through our September 19, 1994 partial/

conditional approval of the Telluride

PM10 SIP (59 FR 47807), our October 4,

1996 full approval of the Telluride PM10

SIP (61 FR 51784) with the adoption of

new street sanding requirements, our

May 19, 1994 approval of the Pagosa

Springs PM10 SIP (59 FR 26126), and the

demonstration that the Telluride and

Pagosa Springs areas are now attaining

the NAAQS.

Although EPA’s regulations (see 40

CFR 51.396) require that states adopt

transportation conformity provisions in

their SIPs for areas designated

nonattainment or subject to an EPAapproved maintenance plan, we have

decided that a transportation conformity

SIP is not an applicable requirement for

purposes of evaluating a redesignation

request under section 107(d) of the

CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA’s

1996 approval of the Boston carbon

monoxide redesignation. (See 61 FR

2918, January 30, 1996.)

We approved the requirements of the

part D new source review (NSR) permit

program for the Pagosa Springs

moderate PM10 nonattainment area on

August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42506). In that

same Federal Register action, we only

partially approved Colorado’s

nonattainment NSR permitting

regulations for the Telluride moderate

PM10 nonattainment area because

Colorado did not submit NSR permitting

regulations for sources of PM10

precursors in Telluride and because

EPA had not yet found that such sources

did not contribute significantly in

Telluride. Colorado’s nonattainment

area NSR permitting regulations were

fully approved on September 19, 1994

when we partially/conditionally

approved the PM10 SIP element for

Telluride (59 FR 47807). Once the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas are

redesignated to attainment, the

prevention of significant deterioration

(PSD) requirements of part C of the CAA

will apply. We must ensure that

Colorado has made any needed

modifications to its PSD regulations so

that its PSD regulations will apply in

the Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas

after redesignation. Colorado’s PSD

regulations, which we approved as

meeting all applicable Federal

requirements, apply to any area

designated as unclassifiable or

attainment and, thus, will become fully

effective in the Telluride and Pagosa

Springs area upon redesignation of the

area to attainment.

C. Have the Transportation Conformity

Requirements Been Met?

Under our transportation conformity

regulations, States are to define the

mobile vehicle emissions budget to

which Federal transportation plans

must demonstrate conformity. The

emissions budget is defined as the level

of mobile source emissions relied upon

in the attainment or maintenance

demonstration to maintain compliance

with the NAAQS.

Colorado had previously adopted

mobile source emissions budgets for

Telluride for the years 1994 and 1997 of

16,901 lb/day and 14,687 lb/day,

respectively. In the Telluride

maintenance plan, Colorado established

a new mobile source emissions budget

of 10,001 lb/day for the year 2012 and

beyond. This budget is the total of the

2012 mobile source PM10 emissions and

includes vehicle exhaust, highways,

paved collector roads, paved local roads

and dirt roads. EPA’s approval of 10,001

lb/day as the budget means that this

value must be used for conformity

determinations for all years after 2012.

This budget was adopted in Colorado’s

Ambient Air Standards Regulation and

submitted to us for approval. We are

approving the emission budget for

Telluride into the SIP.

Colorado has also previously adopted

mobile source emissions budgets for

Pagosa Springs for the years 1994 and

1997 of 6,204 lb/day and 6,281 lb/day,

respectively. In the Pagosa Springs

maintenance plan, Colorado established

a new mobile source emissions budget

of 7,486 lb/day for the year 2012 and

beyond. This budget is the total of the

2012 mobile source PM10 emissions and

includes vehicle exhaust, highways,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32561

paved roads, gravel roads and dirt roads.

EPA’s approval of 7,486 lb/day as the

budget means that this value must be

used for conformity determinations for

all years after 2012. This budget was

adopted in Colorado’s Ambient Air

Standards Regulation and submitted to

us for approval. We are approving the

emission budget for Pagosa Springs into

the SIP.

On March 2, 1999, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit issued a decision in

Environmental Defense Fund vs. the

Environmental Protection Agency, No.

97–1637, that we must make an

affirmative determination that the

submitted motor vehicle emission

budgets contained in State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) are

adequate before they are used to

determine the conformity of

Transportation Plans or Transportation

Improvement Programs. In response to

the court decision, we make any

submitted SIP revision containing an

emission budget available for public

comment and respond to these

comments before announcing our

adequacy determination. EPA’s

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR

part 93) spells out criteria that EPA

must use in its adequacy review.

EPA sent a letter to the Colorado Air

Pollution Control Division on July 12,

2000 stating that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets in the submitted

Telluride and Pagosa Springs PM10

maintenance plans are adequate. This

finding has also been announced on

EPA’s conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/

adequacy.htm. We documented our

adequacy determination for Telluride

and Pagosa Springs in the Federal

Register on August 3, 2000 (65 FR

47726). The budgets took effect on

August 18, 2000 (15 days after our

announcement in the Federal Register),

superseding the prior PM10 emissions

budgets for Telluride and Pagosa

Springs.

D. Did Colorado Follow the Proper

Procedures for Adopting This Action?

The CAA requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission. Section

110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each

implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable

notice and public hearing. Section

110(l) of the CAA similarly provides

that each revision to an implementation

plan submitted by a State under the

CAA must be adopted by such State

after reasonable notice and public

hearing.

Colorado held a public hearing for the

proposed rule changes on March 16,

2000. The rulemaking was adopted by

the Air Quality Control Commission

(AQCC) directly after the March 16,

2000 hearing and was formally

submitted to EPA by the Governor on

May 10, 2000. We reviewed the

submission against our completeness

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

We determined the submission was

complete and notified Colorado in a

letter dated August 7, 2000. We have

evaluated the Governor’s submittal and

have determined that Colorado met the

requirements for reasonable notice and

public hearing under section 110(a)(2)

of the CAA.

III. Background

To implement our 1987 revisions to

the particulate matter NAAQS, on

August 7, 1987 (52 FR 29383), we

categorized areas of the nation into three

groups based on the likelihood that

protection of the PM10 NAAQS would

require revisions of the existing SIP. We

identified both Telluride and Pagosa

Springs as PM10 ‘‘Group I’’ areas of

concern, i.e., areas with a strong

likelihood of violating the PM10 NAAQS

and requiring a substantial SIP revision.

The Telluride and Pagosa Springs areas

were among several Group I PM10 areas,

all of which were designated and

classified as moderate PM10

nonattainment areas by operation of law

upon enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (November 15,

1990). See 56 FR 56694 at 56705–706

(November 6, 1991).

By November 15, 1991, States

containing initial moderate PM10

nonattainment areas were required to

submit most elements of their PM10

SIPs. (See sections 172(c), 188, and 189

of the CAA.) Some provisions, such as

PM10 contingency measures required by

section 172(c)(9) of the CAA and

nonattainment new source review (NSR)

provisions, were due at later dates. In

order for a nonattainment area to be

redesignated to attainment, the above

mentioned conditions in section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA must be met.

We partially/conditionally approved the

PM10 SIP for Telluride on September 19,

1994 (59 FR 47807) and fully approved

it, with the adoption of new street

sanding requirements, on October 4,

1996 (61 FR 51784). We approved the

PM10 SIP for Pagosa Springs on May 19,

1994 (59 FR 26126).

EPA promulgated new standards for

PM10 on September 18, 1997. Areas

were to be designated under the new

PM10 standard by July 2000. On May 14,

1999, the United States Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in

American Trucking Associations, Inc. et

al., v. United States Environmental

Protection Agency vacated the 1997

PM10 standard. Because of the Court

ruling, we are continuing to implement

the pre-existing PM10 standard, and are

therefore approving redesignations to

qualified PM10 nonattainment areas. On

May 10, 2000, the Governor of Colorado

submitted a request to redesignate the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs moderate

PM10 nonattainment areas to attainment

(for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS) and

submitted maintenance plans for the

areas.

IV. 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).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it 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

32562 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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. 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). This rule

will be effective August 14, 2001 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by July 16, 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 August 14, 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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

40 CFR parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title

40 are 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 G—Colorado

2. Section 52.320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(90) to read as

follows:

§ 52.320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(90) On May 10, 2000, the State of

Colorado submitted maintenance plans

for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

PM10 nonattainment areas and requested

that these areas be redesignated to

attainment for the PM10 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The

redesignation requests and maintenance

plans satisfy all applicable requirements

of the Clean Air Act.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Colorado Air Quality Control

Commission, ‘‘State Implementation

Plan Specific Regulations for

Nonattainment—Attainment/

Maintenance Areas (Local Elements),’’ 5

CCR 1001–20, revisions adopted 3/16/

00, effective 5/30/00, as follows: Section

I., Pagosa Springs Attainment/

Maintenance Area and Section II.,

Telluride Attainment/Maintenance

Area.

(ii) Additional Material.

(A) January 24, 2001 letter from

Margie Perkins, Director, Colorado Air

Pollution Control Division, to Richard

Long, Director, EPA Region VIII Air and

Radiation Program, clarifying the

commitments of the Verification of

Continued Attainment section of the

Telluride and Pagosa Springs

maintenance plans.

3. Section 52.332 is amended by

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 52.332 Moderate PM–10 nonattainment

area plans.

* * * * *

(j) On May 10, 2000, the State of

Colorado submitted maintenance plans

for the Telluride and Pagosa Springs

PM10 nonattainment areas and requested

that these areas be redesignated to

attainment for the PM10 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. The

redesignation requests and maintenance

plans satisfy all applicable requirements

of the Clean Air Act.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In § 81.306, the table entitled

‘‘Colorado-PM–10’’ is amended by

revising the entries under Archuleta

County for the ‘‘Pagosa Springs Area’’

and under San Miguel County for

‘‘Telluride’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.306 Colorado.

* * * * *

COLORADO—PM–10

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

*******

Archuleta County:

Pagosa Springs Area ................................................................ August 14, 2001 ...... Attainment.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32563

COLORADO—PM–10—Continued

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date Type Date Type

Township 35N–Range 2W:Sections 13, 14, 15; Section

23 NE, N 1⁄2 SE; Section 24 all except SWSW; Section

25 N 1⁄2NE, NENW.

Township 35N–Range 1W: Section 18 W 1⁄2

*******

San Miguel County:

Telluride ..................................................................................... August 14, 2001 ...... Attainment.

The Telluride attainment/maintenance area begins 28 at

the intersection ofColorado State Highway 145 and the

Telluride service area boundary, existed in 1991. The

western edge of the 2 nonattainment area until it meets

Remine Creek is defined as follows: A tract of land located in a portion of the west one-half of Section 28

and the east one-half of Section 29, Township 43

North, Range 9 west, of New Mexico Principal Meridian, County of San Miguel, State of Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner

of the said Section 28; Thence N 89 deg.36′00′′ W.

292.70 Feet; Thence S 04 deg.05′12′′ W. 538.63 Feet;

Thence N 03 deg.29′42′′ W. 780.19 Feet; Thence N 22

deg.15′00′′ E. 3344.16 Feet; Thence S 51 deg.51′49′′

E. 570.44 Feet; Thence S 03 deg.15′36′′ E. 1106.22

Feet; Thence S 45 deg.24′42′′ E. 546.96 Feet; Thence

S 28 deg.41′12′′ W. 549.62 Feet; Thence S 29

deg.40′09′′ E. 169.68 Feet; Thence S 44 deg.30′03′′ W.

649.51 Feet; Thence S 85 deg.54′00′′ E. 660.00 Feet;

Thence S 04 deg.06′00′′ W. 660.00 Feet; Thence N 89

deg.56′00′′ E. 1318.68 Feet; to the true point of beginning containing 11249 acres as described above. Then,

at Remine Creek, the attainment/maintenance boundary follows the service area boundary for 9.65 miles to

the 9,200 foot contour line. The boundary then intersects Bear Creek. Here the attainment/maintenance

boundary diverges from the service area boundary

(9,200 foot contour line). The attainment/maintenance

boundary continues in a west, southwest direction for

0.92 miles from the intersection of the 9,200 foot contour line and Bear Creek to the top of ski lift number 9

in the Telluride Ski Area at an elevation of about

11,900 feet. The boundary then shifts and runs in a

north-westerly direction for 0.83 miles from the top of

lift 9 to the top of lift 7, which is located at an elevation

of 10,490 feet. From the top of lift 7, the attainment/

maintenance boundary continues in a north-westerly direction for 0.5 miles to the intersection of lift 3 with the

10,000 foot control line. The attainment/maintenance

boundary follows the 10,000 foot contour line in a

south, south-west direction for 3.2 miles, until it intersects Skunk Creek. Here the boundary diverges from

the 10,000 foot contour line and follows Skunk Creek in

a northerly direction for 2.25 miles. At the intersection

of Skunk Creek and Colorado State Highway 145, the

attainment/maintenance boundary leaves the creek and

follows Highway 145 in a northerly direction until it

meets the service area boundary as it existed prior to

changes adopted in 1991.

*******

32564 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–15029 Filed 6–14–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 281

[FRL–6976–4]

North Carolina; Final Approval of State

Underground Storage Tank Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination on

the State of North Carolina’s application

for final approval.

SUMMARY: The State of North Carolina

has applied for approval of its

underground storage tank program for

petroleum and hazardous substances

under Subtitle I of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has reviewed North Carolina’s

application and has reached a final

determination that North Carolina’s

underground storage tank program for

petroleum and hazardous substances

satisfies all of the requirements

necessary to qualify for approval. Thus,

EPA is granting final approval to the

State of North Carolina to operate its

underground storage tank program for

petroleum and hazardous substances.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Final approval for the

State of North Carolina’s underground

storage tanks program shall be effective

August 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John K. Mason, Chief, Underground

Storage Tank Section, U.S. EPA, Region

4, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303,

phone number: (404) 562–9441.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

authorizes the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to approve state

underground storage tank programs to

operate in the state in lieu of the Federal

underground storage tank (UST)

program. To qualify for final

authorization, a state’s program must:

(1) Be ‘‘no less stringent’’ than the

Federal program for the seven elements

set forth at RCRA Section 9004(a)(1)

through (7); and (2) provide for adequate

enforcement of compliance with UST

standards of RCRA Section 9004(a).

Note that RCRA sections 9005 (on

information-gathering) and 9006 (on

Federal enforcement) by their terms

apply even in states with programs

approved by EPA under RCRA section

9004. Thus, the Agency retains its

authority under RCRA sections 9005

and 9006, 42 U.S.C. 6991d and 6991e,

and other applicable statutory and

regulatory provisions to undertake

inspections and enforcement actions in

approved states. With respect to such an

enforcement action, the Agency will

rely on Federal sanctions, Federal

inspection authorities, and Federal

procedures rather than the state

authorized analogues to these

provisions.

On January 16, 1998, the State of

North Carolina submitted an official

application to obtain final program

approval to administer the underground

storage tank program for petroleum and

hazardous substances. On August 10,

1999, EPA published a tentative

decision announcing its intent to grant

North Carolina final approval. Further

background on the tentative decision to

grant approval appears at 64 FR 43336,

August 10, 1999.

Along with the tentative

determination, EPA announced the

availability of the application for public

comment and the date of a public

hearing on the application. EPA

requested advance notice for testimony

and reserved the right to cancel the

public hearing for lack of public

interest. Since there was no public

request, the public hearing was

cancelled. No public comments were

received regarding EPA’s approval of

North Carolina’s underground storage

tank program.

The State of North Carolina is not

approved to operate the underground

storage tank program on Indian lands

within the State’s borders.

B. Decision

I conclude that the State of North

Carolina’s application for final program

approval meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

Subtitle I of RCRA. Accordingly, North

Carolina is granted final approval to

operate its underground storage tank

program for petroleum and hazardous

substances. The State of North Carolina

now has the responsibility for managing

all regulated underground storage tank

facilities within its border and carrying

out all aspects of the underground

storage tank program except with regard

to Indian lands where EPA will have

regulatory authority. North Carolina also

has primary enforcement responsibility,

although EPA retains the right to

conduct enforcement actions under

section 9006 of RCRA.

C. Administrative Requirements

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on state, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘federal mandates’’ that may result

in expenditures to state, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. Before promulgating an

EPA rule for which a written statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA

generally requires EPA to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule. The

provisions of section 205 do not apply

when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective,

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

state, local or tribal governments or the

private sector. The UMRA generally

excludes from the definition of ‘‘Federal

intergovernmental mandate’’ duties that

arise from participation in a voluntary

Federal program. North Carolina’s

participation in EPA’s state program

approval process under RCRA Subtitle I

is voluntary. Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA.

In addition, EPA has determined that

this rule contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments.