[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32035-32040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12789]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL-6703-3]
RIN 2060-AJ12


Extension of Operating Permits Program, Interim Approval 
Expiration Dates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the operating permits regulations of EPA. 
Those regulations were originally promulgated on July 21, 1992. These 
amendments will extend up to December 1, 2001 all operating permits 
program interim approvals. This action will allow the time needed for 
permitting authorities to correct all remaining interim approval 
deficiencies and obtain full approval for their operating permits 
programs.

DATES: The regulatory amendments announced herein take effect on May 
31, 2000. For those programs whose interim

[[Page 32036]]

approval expiration dates are amended by this action, interim approval 
will expire on December 1, 2001. Any program revisions necessary for a 
program to obtain full approval must be submitted to EPA not later than 
June 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: 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. The address of the EPA air 
docket is: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-93-50, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The Docket is located in Room 
M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). The telephone number for the EPA 
air docket is (202) 260-7548. 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 
Carolina 27711 (telephone 919-541-5331, e-mail: [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 14, 2000, EPA published in the 
Federal Register a direct final rulemaking which would have extended 
until June 1, 2002, expiration dates for all State and local operating 
permits programs that have interim approvals (65 FR 7290) granted by 
EPA under its regulations at 40 CFR part 70 (part 70). A proposal to 
that effect was published the same day (65 FR 7333). In the rulemaking, 
EPA stated that if relevant adverse comments were received by the 
comment deadline specified in that action, March 15, 2000, EPA would 
publish a document informing the public that the rule would not take 
effect and that comments would be addressed in any final rule based on 
the proposed rule.
    The EPA did receive an adverse comment on the direct final 
rulemaking within the comment deadline. Accordingly, EPA published a 
Federal Register document on March 29, 2000 withdrawing the rulemaking 
(65 FR 16523). This rulemaking represents the final rule based on the 
February 14, 2000 proposal, to which the adverse comment also applied. 
The comments on the proposal are addressed herein.

I. Background

    If an operating permits program administered by a State or local 
permitting authority under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act) does not 
fully meet, but does ``substantially [meet],'' the requirements of part 
70, EPA may grant that program ``interim approval.'' Permits granted 
under an interim approval are fully effective and expire at the end of 
their fixed term, unless renewed under a part 70 program. See 40 CFR 
70.4(d)(2). Many State and local permitting programs have been granted 
interim approval, with most final interim approval actions having 
occurred in 1995 and 1996. See 40 CFR part 70, Appendix A. To obtain 
full approval, a permitting authority must submit to EPA program 
revisions to correct all deficiencies that caused the operating permits 
program to receive interim approval. Such submittal must be made no 
later than 6 months prior to the expiration of the interim approval. 
See 40 CFR 70.4(f)(2).
    On August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44460) and August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45530), 
EPA proposed revisions to its part 70 operating permits program 
regulations. Primarily, the proposals addressed changes to the system 
for revising permits, but a number of other proposed changes were also 
included. The preamble to the August 31, 1995 proposal noted the 
concern of many permitting authorities over having to revise their 
operating permits programs twice; once to correct interim approval 
deficiencies, and again to address the revisions to part 70. In the 
August 1995 preamble, the Agency proposed that States with interim 
approval ``* * * should be allowed to delay the submittal of any 
program revisions to address program deficiencies previously listed in 
their notice of interim approval until the deadline to submit other 
changes required by the proposed revisions to part 70'' (60 FR 45552).
    On October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56368), EPA amended 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) to 
permit the Administrator to grant extensions to interim approval 
expiration dates to allow permitting authorities the opportunity to 
combine program revisions directed at the correction of interim 
approval deficiencies as well as the adoption of the part 70 revisions. 
In this rulemaking, all interim approvals granted prior to the date of 
issuance of a memorandum announcing EPA's position on this issue 
(memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Regional Division Directors, 
``Extension of Interim Approvals of Operating Permits Programs,'' June 
13, 1996) were granted 10 month extensions from their different 
respective expiration dates.
    The EPA then extended interim approval expiration dates for certain 
State and local permitting programs a second time, on August 29, 1997 
(62 FR 45732). On July 27, 1998, EPA published a direct final 
rulemaking extending interim approval expiration dates a third time, 
this time covering all interim approved programs, until June 1, 2000. 
In each of these instances, delays in the expected promulgation of the 
final part 70 revisions past the previous interim approval expiration 
dates led EPA to grant the further extensions of the expiration 
deadlines. The Agency intended these extensions to provide State and 
local agencies time to apply to combine their program revisions and to 
allow EPA to take action on those requests.
    Following discussions with various stakeholders and further 
deliberations concerning the revisions to the part 70 regulations, EPA 
is in the process of preparing a supplemental proposal to take comment 
on a series of possible part 70 revisions that arose out of those 
discussions and deliberations. The Agency anticipates publishing this 
supplemental proposal in the Federal Register in late summer or early 
fall of 2000. The EPA now projects promulgation of the entire final 
package of part 70 revisions for late 2001.
    To prevent interim approvals from expiring on June 1, 2000, and to 
enable permitting authorities to defer correction of interim approval 
deficiencies until their adoption of the expected part 70 revisions, 
EPA published a direct final rule on February 14, 2000 to extend all 
interim approval expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65 FR 7290). 
Simultaneously, EPA published an accompanying proposal, also to extend 
interim approval expiration dates until June 1, 2002 (65 FR 7333).

II. Comments Received on the Proposal

    The comment period for the February 14, 2000 proposal expired on 
March 15, 2000. During the comment period, EPA received two comment 
letters addressing that proposal.
    The first commenter apparently misunderstood the mechanisms for 
allowing permitting authorities to combine program revisions. The 
comment addressed the fact that an interim approval expiration date of 
June 1, 2002 did not allow enough time to prepare program changes to 
address the expected revisions to part 70, which was projected for 
promulgation in late 2001.
    The preamble of the direct final rulemaking on February 14, 2000 
explained that after part 70 was revised, another interim approval 
expiration date extension of either 18 months or 2 years from the date 
of rulemaking revising part 70 would be available to

[[Page 32037]]

allow time for preparation of the combined program revisions. The 
Agency intended the interim approval expiration date extension until 
June 1, 2002 to be a measure to prevent interim approvals from expiring 
on June 1, 2000, before the part 70 revisions were promulgated. The 
commenter's concern, therefore, would have been addressed by the 
provisions explained in the February 2000 direct final rulemaking.
    Prior extensions and the June 13, 1996 memorandum referenced above 
have been predicated upon the understanding that permitting authorities 
wishing to combine program revisions to meet the revised part 70 with 
program revisions to correct remaining interim approval deficiencies, 
were to request, within 30 days of promulgation of the part 70 
revisions, an additional 18 month or 2 year extension of their interim 
approval deadline (65 FR 7291-7292). Accordingly, neither the direct 
final rule nor the proposal was intended to grant across-the-board 
extensions to interim approval deadlines sufficiently past the expected 
promulgation date of the part 70 revisions to allow the full cycle of 
State and local program revisions, submissions, and EPA approvals to 
occur.
    The second commenter asserted that EPA's proposed action is 
contrary to the express terms of the Act and must be withdrawn. The 
commenter referred to Section 502(g) of the Act, which provides that 
``[a]n interim approval under [Section 502(g)] shall expire on a date 
set by the Administrator not later than 2 years after such approval, 
and may not be renewed.''
    This commenter further argued that the existing 40 CFR 70.4(d)(2) 
does not justify an extension of interim approval deadlines until June 
1, 2002. The commenter stated that to the extent that Sec. 70.4(d)(2) 
allowed an extension of interim approvals by up to 10 months on an 
individual basis, EPA had already granted this 10-month extension in 
the October 31, 1996 rulemaking and that, at any rate, the proposed 
extension to June 1, 2002 was longer than 10 months.
    This commenter also asserted that to the extent Sec. 70.4(d)(2) 
allowed longer interim approval periods for States to combine program 
changes, this provision did not justify the proposed extension to June 
1, 2002 because Sec. 70.4(d)(2) contemplated such extensions only after 
the promulgation of part 70 revisions, which has not occurred. 
Moreover, the commenter noted that this provision authorized additional 
time ``only once per State'' and that EPA had already granted multiple 
extensions in the past.
    Finally, the commenter argued that the continuing extension of 
interim approvals does not represent sound policy. That commenter 
stated that the deficiencies in State programs that warranted EPA 
granting interim, rather than full, approval often involved important 
substantive issues. Moreover, the commenter argued that no real 
hardship would be suffered by States required to undertake more than 
one program revision, noting that States regularly revise their 
regulations and statutes as part of the State implementation plan 
process. Finally, the commenter argued that any pursuit of 
administrative convenience could not override statutory requirements 
and the purpose of the permit program.
    In consideration of these comments, and taking into account the 
further delays in promulgating the revisions to part 70 and the need 
for a supplemental part 70 proposal, EPA is abandoning the concept of 
allowing program revisions to correct interim approval deficiencies to 
be combined with program revisions necessary to conform to the 
provisions of expected future revisions to part 70. The Agency 
concludes that it is no longer appropriate to continue extending 
interim approval expiration dates in furtherance of this combination 
approach.
    Notwithstanding the repeated extensions of interim approvals, EPA 
has, in the preambles to those previous extensions, consistently 
encouraged permitting authorities to correct their remaining interim 
approval deficiencies and not await promulgation of the part 70 
revisions. Indeed, a number of State and local permitting authorities 
have corrected their deficiencies and have either received full 
approval or submitted corrections to EPA to gain full approval. Most 
permitting authorities with interim approved programs, however, have 
not corrected all remaining deficiencies.
    The EPA also is aware of programs that have undertaken rulemakings 
during their interim approval period to correct some but not all 
outstanding deficiencies, with some deficiencies remaining that are 
unrelated to the expected part 70 revisions. Moreover, further inquiry 
has demonstrated that the significant majority of remaining interim 
approval deficiencies are unrelated to the issues addressed by the 
revisions proposed to part 70, with most deficiencies not being altered 
or affected by expected revisions to part 70. Accordingly, EPA believes 
it is appropriate to require correction of all interim approval 
deficiencies without regard to the possible future promulgation of the 
part 70 revisions.
    At the same time, for State and local programs to have the 
opportunity to correct all interim approval deficiencies, and to 
provide EPA the opportunity to act on these submittals, this rulemaking 
extends the interim approval expiration deadline until December 1, 
2001. Under part 70, State and local permitting authorities must submit 
corrections of all remaining interim approval deficiencies by no later 
than 6 months prior to this deadline, namely by no later than June 1, 
2001, for EPA to treat these submissions as timely.
    The Agency believes it is necessary to extend interim approval 
expiration deadlines until December 1, 2001 both to ensure that 
permitting authorities have the opportunity to correct remaining 
deficiencies, and to ensure that title V permit programs continue to be 
implemented effectively by State and local permitting authorities. The 
Agency believes that State and local agencies are well equipped to 
continue effective administration and enforcement of operating permits 
programs, and to ensure the issuance of permits designed to serve the 
important compliance benefits of the Act.
    In the absence of the extension granted in this rulemaking, interim 
approved programs would expire on June 1, 2000, automatically placing 
into effect the part 71 Federal operating permits program for 88 State 
and local permitting authorities. This outcome would only hinder the 
effort to issue operating permits and bring about the important 
benefits of permits, since sources without already issued part 70 
permits in those jurisdictions newly subject to the part 71 Federal 
operating permits program would need to re-apply for part 71 permits 
within 1 year after the June 1, 2000 effective date. Consequently, 
those sources would not be issued operating permits until well after 
the time they would have been under a preserved part 70 program.
    Finally, EPA is well aware that many permitting authorities with 
interim approved programs have not undertaken program revisions to 
correct their remaining deficiencies under the expectation that an 
extension past the June 1, 2000 deadline would be granted to allow the 
opportunity to combine their program revisions as previously discussed. 
Accordingly, today's action prevents the disruption that would occur 
from imposing the Federal permitting program on affected State and 
local agencies on relatively short notice. At the same time, EPA is 
hereby providing clear notice that to avoid having their programs 
expire and be replaced by the Federal permitting program, permitting 
authorities must

[[Page 32038]]

correct all remaining deficiencies and submit those corrections by the 
deadlines discussed above, with further notice that no additional 
extensions of interim approval deadlines will be granted. The EPA 
believes that all permitting authorities with currently identified 
interim approval deficiencies will be able to make any necessary 
revisions to their rules or statutes, and to submit any needed 
corrections, by no later than June 1, 2002.

III. Effective Date

    Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.A., 
551-59, 701-06) requires that EPA allow at least 30 days from the 
publication of a substantive rule before it becomes effective unless 
EPA determines there is good cause for a shorter deadline. The primary 
purpose of the delayed effective date is to give citizens a reasonable 
time to prepare to comply with, or take other action regarding, a rule. 
The Agency has determined that good cause exists for making this 
rulemaking effective on May 31, 2000 since delaying the effective date 
of the rulemaking would be impracticable and contrary to the public 
interest, and lead to serious dislocation in government programs.
    The compelling argument for making this rulemaking effective on May 
31, 2000 is that it must take effect before June 1, 2000 or it will 
fail to fulfill its intended function to prevent interim approval 
programs from expiring and being replaced by the Federal permitting 
program. On June 1, 2000, all interim approvals will expire and cannot 
be re-established after that date. As discussed above, expiration of 
State and local interim approved programs would frustrate the ongoing 
implementation of the title V permits program by permitting authorities 
and be contrary to the public interest. It would also force currently 
un-permitted sources to resubmit permit applications at the Federal 
level, even though they would have otherwise soon obtained State-issued 
permits. In light of the scale of such a disruption to State programs, 
it would be impracticable for EPA to be able to undertake substitute 
permitting responsibilities on such an expeditious basis to make up for 
the lost time. Finally, having to assume permitting responsibilities 
would also divert EPA resources from efforts to assist State and local 
agencies in correcting their programs, and from EPA's recent 
commencement of the Federal permitting program for sources located in 
Indian country.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket for this regulatory 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 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 document.

B. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this action is not a ``significant'' regulatory action 
because it does 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 only extends an existing deferral of those requirements. 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), I certify that this action will 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 (a subset of which constitutes the action in 
this rulemaking). This action does not substantially alter the part 70 
regulations as they pertain to small entities and accordingly will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Rather, it leaves existing State and local permitting 
programs in place, whereas absence of EPA action would cause them to 
expire and be replaced by a new Federal permitting program.

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 is 
not affected by the action in this rulemaking notice 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 rulemaking notice, which simply 
provides for an extension of the interim approval of certain programs, 
does not alter the assumptions of the approved part 70 ICR used in 
determining the burden estimate. Furthermore, this action does 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

[[Page 32039]]

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 rulemaking does 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 action does not amend the part 70 
regulations in a way that significantly alters 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 accompany this regulatory action.

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    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. The 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).

G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1977), applies 
to any rule that EPA determines (1) Is ``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 final rule is not subject to Executive Order 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.

H. 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 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 rule change 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 rule change will not create new requirements but will only extend 
an existing deferral 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.

I. 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.''

[[Page 32040]]

    This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian 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.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 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 rule 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, Air pollution control, Operating permits.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Appendix A of part 70 is amended by the following:
    a. Revising the date at the end of the third sentence in paragraph 
(a) under Texas to read ``December 1, 2001''; and
    b. Revising the date at the end of the following paragraphs to read 
``December 1, 2001'': Paragraph (a) under Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands, 
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 
under Alabama and Nevada; paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), 
and (d)(2) under Arizona; paragraphs (a) through (hh) under California; 
paragraphs (a) and (e) under Tennessee; and paragraphs (a) through (i) 
under Washington.

[FR Doc. 00-12789 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P