Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9661

1EPA proposed this SIP revision using a ‘‘parallel

process.’’ EPA provided for the public to comment

on this SIP revision by making available the rules

and materials that Rhode Island was proposing for

approval on the state level in parallel with EPA’s

action. Rhode Island promulgated those rules prior

to submitting them to EPA for this approval. One

set of rules implementing this I/M program (Rhode

Island Motor Vehicle Safety and Emissions Control

Regulation No. 1) will not be finally effective until

January 31, 2001, because Rhode Island law

requires 20 days to elapse after a regulation is filed

with the Secretary of State. Therefore, Regulation

No. 1 will be effective shortly after signature of this

notice, but prior to publication of this action in the

Federal Register and prior to this action taking

effect under the Clean Air Act. EPA is signing this

action now because the State has done everything

necessary for Regulation No. 1 to take effect on

January 31, 2001, and we are simply awaiting

passage of the 20 day filing period. See R.I. Gen.

Laws section 42–35–4(b).

docket number for this deviation

[CGD07–01–005], indicate the specific

section of this document to which each

comment applies, and give the reason

for each comment. Please submit all

comments and related material in an

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by

11 inches, suitable for copying. If you

would like to know if they reached us,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope. We will consider

all comments and material received

during the comment period.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

Greg E. Shapley,

Chief, Bridge Administration, Seventh Coast

Guard District.

[FR Doc. 01–3373 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 31 and 35

[FRL–6943–5]

RIN 2030 AA56

Environmental Program Grants for

Tribes, Final Rule: Delay of Effective

Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective

date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001, this action

temporarily delays for 60 days the

effective date of the rule entitled

Environmental Program Grants for

Tribes, published in the Federal

Register on January 16, 2001, 66 FR

3781. This rule concerns several

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

grant programs for Indian Tribes and

Intertribal Consortia. It creates a new

Tribal-specific subpart which contains

only the provisions for environmental

program grants that apply to Tribes and

addresses the Performance Partnership

Grant program for Tribes.

DATES: The effective date of the

Environmental Program Grants for

Tribes regulation amending 40 CFR

parts 31 and 35 published in the

Federal Register on January 16, 2001, at

66 FR 3781, is delayed for 60 days, from

February 15, 2001, to a new effective

date of April 17, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W.

Scott McMoran, Grants Administration

Division (3903R), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,

DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 564–5376,

McMoran.Scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

temporary 60-day delay in effective date

is necessary to give Agency officials the

opportunity for further review and

consideration of new regulations,

consistent with the Assistant to the

President’s memorandum of January 20,

2001. This action involves matters

relating to grants and under 5 U.S.C.

553(a)(2) is thus exempt from the notice

and comment requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act.

Dated: January 29, 2001.

David J. O’Connor,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Administration and Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 01–3380 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI–01–043–6991a; A–1–FRL–6943–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode

Island; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Rhode Island.

This revision establishes and requires

the implementation of an enhanced

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program. The intended

effect of this action is to approve this

program. This action is being taken in

accordance with the Clean Air Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective on March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours, by appointment at the

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Room M–1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code

6102), SW., Washington, DC; and

Department of Environmental

Management, 235 Promenade Street,

Providence, RI 02908–5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Hagerty, (617) 918–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking today?

II. What deficiencies were identified in the

notice of proposed rulemaking and how

did Rhode Island address them?

III. What emission reduction credit may

Rhode Island assume in the interim until

the EPA has information available to assign

appropriate credit?

IV. EPA Action.

V. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Action is EPA Taking Today?

In this action we are approving the

submittal of an enhanced motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program submitted by Rhode Island as

a formal SIP revision on January 19,

2001. We are also approving an interim

level of emission reduction credit for

Rhode Island to use for planning

purposes. This action was proposed on

December 18, 2000 in the Federal

Register (65 FR79040) and no comments

were received on the proposal.1

II. What Deficiencies Were Identified in

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

How Did Rhode Island Address Them?

In order to meet certain requirements

of EPA’s I/M rule, Rhode Island was

required to include in its final

submittal: (1) a commitment to maintain

a 96% compliance rate (or revise the SIP

accordingly), (2) the appropriate

enforcement oversight provisions for the

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV),

and (3) a demonstration of the

performance of its test-and-repair

network. The final SIP submittal from

Rhode Island address each of these

requirements. Section 2 of the SIP

narrative entitled ‘‘I/M Performance

Standard,’’ now includes the

appropriate commitment, as required by

40 CFR 51.361—Motorist Compliance

Enforcement, to a 96% compliance rate.

9662 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

In section 14 of the SIP narrative

entitled ‘‘Motorist Compliance

Enforcement,’’ information on training,

auditing, and oversight of enforcement

personnel which meets the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.362—

Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Oversight has been added. Lastly, as

required in the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Rhode Island has submitted

information on failure rate by model

year, number of waivers issued by

month for the first six months of the

program, and station audit sheets for a

typical month of the program. The

failure rates are almost identical to a

nearby state utilizing the same

equipment and test method. The waiver

rate is 2.8% which is below the 3% in

the plan, and the station audits show a

very high rate of compliance. See

supplemental technical support

document dated January 24, 2001 for

more specific information on this

evaluation. EPA has concluded that

Rhode Island’s I/M program

performance is sufficiently effective to

meet the low enhanced performance

standard. Rhode Island has met the

requirements of section 40 CFR 51.353.

(See III. below for information on

interim credit.)

III. What Emission Reduction Credit

May Rhode Island Assume in the

Interim Until the EPA has Information

Available to Assign Appropriate

Credit?

As discussed in detail in the proposed

rulemaking notice, we are approving the

use of 75% of I/M 240 credit for future

air quality planning in Rhode Island.

Once the comparison study results are

available from the Massachusetts study

on this same test type which Rhode

Island will be relying on to verify its

credit, EPA will establish appropriate

credit for the BAR31 test done on

NYTEST equipment. If the emission

reduction credits assigned do not meet

or exceed the credit assumed by Rhode

Island, Rhode Island and EPA will take

appropriate action to correct any SIP

shortfall in any SIP demonstrations that

may rely on credit from the I/M

program.

Other specific requirements of the

EPA I/M rule and the rationale for EPA’s

proposed action are explained in the

NPR and will not be restated here. No

public comments were received on the

NPR.

IV. EPA Action

EPA is approving the Rhode Island

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance program as a revision to

the Rhode Island SIP.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. 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

addressing Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

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

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by April 10, 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9663

Dated: January 31, 2001.

Stephen Perkins,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA-New

England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart OO—Rhode Island

2. In § 52.2070 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by adding a new entry

in numerical order under ‘‘Air Pollution

Control Regulation’’ and by adding a

new State citation to the end of the table

for ‘‘Rhode Island Motor Vehicle Safety

and Emissions Control Regulation’’ to

read as follows:

§ 52.2070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA APPROVED RHODE ISLAND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations

*******

Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 34.Rhode Island Motor Vehicle

Inspection/Maintenance

Program.

March 30, 2000 ........... February 9, 2001 ........ Department of Environmental

Management regulation

containing I/M standards.

*******

Rhode Island Motor Vehicle

Safety and Emissions Control Regulation No. 1.

Rhode Island Motor Vehicle

Inspection/Maintenance

Program.

January 31, 2001 ........ [Insert FR citation from

published date].

Department of Administration

regulation for the I/M program.

*******

[FR Doc. 01–3284 Filed 2–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[Docket WA–00–01; 6937–5]

Clean Air Act Reclassification; Wallula,

Washington Particulate Matter (PM–10)

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has determined that the

Wallula nonattainment area has not

attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter of less

than or equal to 10 microns by the

attainment date of December 31, 1997,

as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA’s

finding is based on EPA’s review of

monitored air quality data reported for

the years 1995 through 2000. As a result

of this finding, the Wallula PM–10

nonattainment area will be reclassified

by operation of law as a serious PM–10

nonattainment area.

DATES: Effective March 12, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of all information

supporting this action are available for

public inspection and copying between

8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Pacific

Standard Time at EPA Region 10, Office

of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Deneen, EPA, Region 10, Office

of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101,

(206) 553–6706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 16, 2000, we solicited

public comment on a proposal to find

that the Wallula nonattainment area has

not attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than or equal to 10

microns (PM–10) by the attainment date

of December 31, 1997, as required by the

Clean Air Act. Such a finding would

result in the reclassification of the

Wallula PM–10 nonattainment area as a

serious PM–10 nonattainment area by

operation of law. In the proposal, we

stated that EPA would accept public

comments on the proposal until

December 1, 2000. See 65 FR 69275.

During the public comment period

that ended December 1, 2000, numerous

commenters asked for an extension of

the public comment period. In light of

the significant public interest in the

proposal and in response to the

numerous request for an extension, EPA

reopened the public comment period to

December 27, 2000, resulting in a public

comment period of at least 30 days. See

65 FR 77544 (December 12, 2000). In

addition, in conjunction with other

public agencies in the Wallula area, EPA

held an informational meeting regarding

the proposal at the Walla Walla County

Airport on December 15, 2000. The

purpose of the meeting was to provide

an opportunity for EPA to explain to the

community the basis for its proposal

and an opportunity for the community

to ask questions of EPA. See 65 FR at

77545. EPA also accepted written

comments at the meeting.

EPA received written comments on

the proposal from more than 30

commenters. After carefully reviewing

and considering all comments received,

EPA finds that the Wallula

nonattainment area has not attained the

PM–10 NAAQS by the attainment date

of December 31, 1997, as required by the

Clean Air Act. Copies of all written

comments received by EPA are in the

docket.

II. Major Issues Raised By Commenters

The following is a summary of the

major issues raised in comments on the

proposal, along with a summary of

EPA’s responses to those issues. A

separate document containing responses

to all comments on the proposal

(Response to Comments) is in the

docket.

A. Public Participation

Almost every commenter requested

that the original 15-day public comment

period be extended to provide more

opportunity for public review of EPA’s

proposal and more opportunity for

public input. Many requested that the

public comment period be extended to

as long as 120 days and several