Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; 15 Percent Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC25-2018a; FRL-6412-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

District of Columbia; 15 Percent Plan for the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are converting our conditional approval of the District of

Columbia's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to achieve a 15

percent reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (15%

plan) in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area to

a full approval. In a rule published on July 7, 1998, we conditionally

approved the District's 15% plan as a revision to the District's SIP.

The sole condition we imposed for full approval was that the District

begin mandatory testing of motor vehicles under its enhanced inspection

and maintenance program (I/M program) on or before April 30, 1999. The

District began the required testing on April 26, 1999, and thus

fulfilled the condition for full approval. The District's 15% plan SIP

revision meets all the requirements of the Clean Air Act relating to

the plan to achieve a 15% reduction in VOC emissions.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 4, 1999 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 7,

1999. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief,

Ozone and Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air

Protection Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the District of

Columbia Department of Public Health, Air Quality Division, 2100 Martin

Luther King Avenue, S.E., Washington, DC 20020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, at

the EPA Region III address above, or by e-mail at

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this action, we are converting our

conditional approval of the District's 15% plan as a revision to the

District's SIP to a full approval.

In a rule published on July 7, 1998 (63 FR 36578), we granted a

conditional approval to the District's 15% plan because the District's

enhanced inspection maintenance (I/M) program, which is one of the many

control measures adopted by the District to achieve the 15% reduction

in VOC emissions, had only been conditionally approved at that time.

The sole condition we imposed for full approval of the District's

enhanced I/M program and thus the 15% plan was that the District begin

mandatory testing of motor vehicles under its enhanced I/M program on

or before April 30, 1999. The District began the required testing on

April 26, 1999, and thus fulfilled the condition for full approval.

In a rule published June 11, 1999 (64 FR 31498) , we converted our

conditional approval of the District's enhanced I/M program as a

revision to the District's SIP to a full approval. Therefore, we are

now converting our conditional approval of the District's 15% plan as a

revision to the District's SIP to full approval.

EPA Action

EPA is converting its conditional approval of the District's 15%

plan to a full approval. An extensive discussion of the District's 15%

plan and our rationale for our approval action was provided in the

previous final rule that conditionally approved the 15% plan (see 63 FR

36578 and 63 FR 36652) and in our Technical Support Document, dated

June 22, 1998. This action to convert our conditional approval to a

full approval is being published without prior proposal because we view

this as a noncontroversial amendment and because we anticipate no

adverse comments. In a separate document in the ``Proposed Rules''

section of this Federal Register publication, we are proposing to

convert our conditional approval of the District's 15% plan SIP

revision to a full approval if adverse comments are filed. This action

will be effective without further notice unless we receive relevant

adverse comment by September 7, 1999. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public

comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Any

parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such

comments are received by September 7, 1999, you

[[Page 42601]]

are advised that this action will be effective on October 4, 1999.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to

provide to the Office of Management and Budget a description of the

extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected

state, local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns,

copies of written communications from the governments, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental

Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies

to any rule that the EPA determines (1) Is ``economically

significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the

Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the

planned rule on children and explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an

economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,

and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies

on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities

of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve or impose

any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action to convert our conditional approval of

the District of Columbia's

[[Page 42602]]

15% plan to a full approval must be filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 4, 1999. 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, Ozone.

Dated: July 23, 1999.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

2. Section 52.476 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 52.476 Control strategy: ozone.

EPA approves as a revision to the District of Columbia State

Implementation Plan the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan for the

District of Columbia's portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

ozone nonattainment area, submitted by the Director of the District of

Columbia Department of Health on April 16, 1998.

Sec. 52.473 [Removed]

3. Section 52.473 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 99-19903 Filed 8-4-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P