[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7333-7335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3206]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL-6535-3]


Extending Operating Permits Program Interim Approval Expiration 
Dates

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the operating permits 
regulations of EPA. Those regulations were originally promulgated on 
July 21, 1992. These amendments would extend up to June 1, 2002, all 
operating permits program interim approvals. This action would allow 
State and local permitting authorities to combine the operating permits 
program revisions necessary to correct interim approval deficiencies 
with program revisions necessary to implement the revisions that are 
anticipated to be promulgated in late 2001.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-93-50 (see docket section below), US 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the 
contact person listed below.
    Docket. Supporting material used in developing the proposal and 
final regulatory revisions is contained in Docket Number A-93-50. This 
docket is available for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. 
and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the address listed above, or 
by calling (202) 260-7548. The Docket is located at the above address 
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Roger Powell, Mail Drop 12, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North

[[Page 7334]]

Carolina 27711 (telephone 919-541-5331, e-mail: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  If no relevant, adverse comments are timely 
received, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this 
proposal, and the direct final rule in the final rules section of this 
Federal Register will automatically go into effect on the date 
specified in that final rulemaking. Public comment received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposal. Because 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this proposal, any 
parties interested in commenting should do so during this comment 
period.
    For further supplemental information, the detailed rationale, and 
the rule provisions, see the information provided in the direct final 
rule in the final rules section of this Federal Register.

Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket for this proposed action is A-93-50. The docket is an 
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or 
otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed 
rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow 
interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that the 
parties can effectively participate in the rulemaking process and (2) 
To serve as the record in case of judicial review (except for 
interagency review materials). The docket is available for public 
inspection at EPA's Air Docket, which is listed under the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

B. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must 
determine whether each regulatory action is ``significant,'' and 
therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Order. The Order defines ``significant'' 
regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a rule that may:
    1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
    2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency.
    3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof.
    4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
E.O. 12866.
    Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866, it has been determined that 
this proposed action is not a ``significant'' regulatory action because 
it would not substantially change the existing part 70 requirements for 
States or sources; requirements which have already undergone OMB 
review. Rather than impose any new requirements, this action would only 
extend an existing mechanism. As such, this action is exempted from OMB 
review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposed action 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. In developing the original part 70 regulations, the 
Agency determined that they would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Similarly, the same 
conclusion was reached in an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
performed in support of the proposed part 70 revisions. This action 
would not substantially alter the part 70 regulations as they pertain 
to small entities and accordingly would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in part 70 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0243. The Information Collection Request (ICR) prepared for part 70 
would not be affected by the action in this proposed rulemaking action 
because the part 70 ICR determined burden on a nationwide basis, 
assuming all part 70 sources were included without regard to the 
approval status of individual programs. The action in this proposed 
rulemaking action, which would simply provide for an extension of the 
interim approval of certain programs, would not alter the assumptions 
of the approved part 70 ICR used in determining the burden estimate. 
Furthermore, this proposed action would not impose any additional 
requirements which would add to the information collection requirements 
for sources or permitting authorities.

E. 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.
    The EPA has determined that the action in this proposed rule would 
not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year. Although the part 70 
regulations governing State operating permit programs impose 
significant Federal mandates, this proposed action would not amend the 
part 70 regulations in a way that would significantly alter the 
expenditures resulting from these mandates. Therefore, the Agency 
concludes that it is not required by section 202 of the UMRA of 1995 to 
provide a written statement to

[[Page 7335]]

accompany this proposed regulatory action.

F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that EPA determines (1) ``Economically Significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) Concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, because it is not 
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety 
risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism 
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position 
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the 
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been 
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism 
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA 
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official 
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a 
meaningful and timely manner.
    This proposed 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. 
This proposal would not create new requirements but would only extend 
an existing mechanism to allow permitting authorities to more 
efficiently revise their operating permits programs. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly 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, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, 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 
officials 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.''
    This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. It does not result in any 
expenditure of tribal government revenue or have any impact on tribal 
governments because it applies only to State and local permitting 
programs. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative Practice and Procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: February 4, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-3206 Filed 2-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U