Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30811

control equipment is recycled into the

active mud system (e.g., mud pits, mud

pumps) and back downhole. Drill

cuttings discarded from the solids

control equipment are a waste product.

Drill cuttings are also cleaned out of the

mud pits and from the solid separation

equipment during displacement of the

drilling fluid system (i.e., accumulated

solids).

Most drilling operators use, at a

minimum, a solids control system

typically consisting of primary and

secondary shale shakers in series with a

‘‘fines removal unit’’ (e.g., mud cleaner,

decanting centrifuge). The primary and

secondary shale shakers remove the

larger and smaller cuttings respectively.

The fines removal unit removes the

‘‘fines’’ (i.e., low gravity solids) down to

about 5 microns (10–6 meters). Solids

less than 5 microns are labeled as

‘‘entrained’’ and are unable to be

removed by solids control equipment.

Because of their small size and large

surface area per unit volume, the fines

retain more drilling fluid than an equal

amount of larger cuttings coming off the

shale shakers. This solid control

equipment configuration was labeled as

‘‘baseline’’ (i.e., representative of

current industry practice) in the April

2000 NODA (65 FR 21559). EPA

continues to use this solid control

equipment configuration as baseline in

the analyses supporting today’s final

rule.

EPA assessed the baseline

performance using industry submitted

ROC data received before and in

response to the April 2000 NODA. EPA

received sufficient additional cuttings

retention data from GOM sources to reevaluate the discharges of the baseline

solids control equipment (e.g., primary

shale shaker, secondary shale shaker,

fines removal unit) to calculate a revised

baseline long-term average retention

value of 10.2% by weight of SBF on

cuttings. Despite the revision of the

retention data, the revised long-term

average retention value is only slightly

different than the 11% originally

calculated for the February 1999

proposal and the 11.4% calculated for

the April 2000 NODA. This relative

convergence of the various calculated

baseline performance averages provides

further confidence in the accuracy of the

baseline model and associated data.

Operators also recover additional

drilling fluid from drill cuttings

discarded from the shale shakers

through the use of cuttings dryers (e.g.,

vertical or horizontal centrifuges,

squeeze press mud recovery units, HighG linear shakers). Since the February

1999 proposal and April 2000 NODA,

the GOM offshore drilling industry has

increased its use of ‘‘add-on’’ cuttings

drying equipment (i.e., ‘‘cuttings

dryers’’) to reduce the amount of SBF

adhering to the SBF-cuttings prior to

discharge. Specifically, in response to

the April 2000 NODA, EPA received

ROC data from approximately 45 GOM

SBF well projects that used cuttings

dryers (e.g., vertical or horizontal

centrifuges, squeeze press mud recovery

units, High-G linear shakers) to reduce

the amount of SBF discharged (see SBF

Statistical Support Document). These 45

GOM SBF well projects represent a

broad representation of typical factors

affecting solids control equipment

performance which include: (1) GOM

formation types (e.g., shale, sand, salt);

(2) rig types (e.g., drill tension leg

platform, semi-submersible); (3) drilling

operation types (i.e., exploratory or

development); (4) water depth (i.e.,

shallow or deep); and (5) rates of

penetration (ROP). Current data

available to EPA indicates that these

cuttings dryers can operate consistently

and efficiently.

2. On page 6874, in column 3, line 14,

correct the sentence to read ‘‘c.

Sediment Toxicity of SBF Discharged

with Cuttings.’’

PART 435—[CORRECTED]

Appendix 5 to Subpart A—[Corrected]

3. On page 6908, in column 2, in

appendix 5 to subpart A of part 435 in

9.2. in line 15, correct the line to read

‘‘2% oil—Detected in >90% of

samples’’.

Appendix 7 to Subpart A—[Corrected]

4. On page 6912, in appendix 7 to

subpart A of part 435, in 4. calculations,

in the last paragraph of 7., correct

equations 11 and 13 to read as follows:

Appendix 7 to Subpart A of Part 435—

API Recommended Practice 13B–2

* * * * *

4. Calculations

* * * * *

7. * * *

G i n V bbl kg bbl WELL WELL =+ = ( ( ) / )) . / 1 1 396 9 11 [ ] to j = n (%BF ∑ Tj × ( ) × ( ) [ ]

* * * * *

% (( ) % / % BF X i BF n X BF WELL SVD Tj SVD SVD = − ×= 1 1 13 [ ] to j = n∑( ) ] ) + × [ ]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–13413 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI–022b; A–1–FRL–6990–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode

Island; Post-1996 Rate of Progress

Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Rhode Island.

This revision establishes a post-1996

rate of progress (ROP) emission

reduction plan for the Providence

serious ozone nonattainment area in

Rhode Island. The intended effect of

this action is to approve this SIP

revision as meeting the requirements of

the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2001 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by July 9, 2001. If adverse

30812 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

comment is received, EPA 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: Comments may be mailed to

David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

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, and at the Office of

Air Resources, Department of

Environmental Management, 235

Promenade Street, Providence, RI

02908–5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert McConnell, (617) 918–1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 21, 1998, the State of Rhode

Island submitted a formal revision to its

SIP. The SIP revision consisted of a

post-1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) plan

for the Providence serious ozone

nonattainment area, which encompasses

the entire geographic area of the State.

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

A. What action is EPA taking today?

B. Why was Rhode Island required to reduce

emissions of ozone forming pollutants?

C. Which specific air pollutants are targeted

by this emission reduction plan?

D. What are the sources of these pollutants?

E. What harmful effects can these pollutants

produce?

F. Should I be concerned if I live near an

industry that emits a significant amount of

these pollutants?

G. To what degree does Rhode Island’s plan

reduce emissions?

H. How will Rhode Island achieve these

emission reductions?

I. Have these emission reductions improved

air quality in Rhode Island?

J. Has Rhode Island met its contingency

measure obligation?

K. Are conformity budgets contained in the

plan?

A. What action is EPA taking today?

EPA is approving a post-1996 rate-ofprogress (ROP) emission reduction plan

submitted by the State of Rhode Island

for the Providence serious ozone

nonattainment area as a revision to the

State’s SIP.

The post-1996 ROP plan documents

how Rhode Island complied with the

provisions of section 182 (c)(2)(B) of the

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act). This

section of the Act requires states

containing certain ozone nonattainment

areas develop strategies to reduce

emissions of the pollutants that react to

form ground level ozone.

B. Why was Rhode Island Required to

Reduce Emissions of Ozone Forming

Pollutants?

Rhode Island was required to develop

a plan to reduce ozone precursor

emissions because it contains an ozone

nonattainment area. A final rule

published by EPA on November 6, 1991

(56 FR 56694) designated the entire

State as nonattainment for ozone, and

classified the area as serious. The area

was named the Providence area.

Section 182 (c)(2)(B) of the Act

requires that serious, severe, and

extreme ozone nonattainment areas

develop ROP plans to reduce ozone

forming pollutant emissions by 3

percent a year, averaged over each

consecutive 3 year period beginning in

1996, until the area reaches its

attainment date. The first set of

emission reductions are required to

occur between November 1996 and

November 1999, and are referred to as

post-1996 ROP plan reductions, which

will yield an overall reduction of nine

percent of the combined 1990 VOC and

NOX emission levels.

C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are

Targeted by This Emission Reduction

Plan?

The State’s post-1996 plan is geared

towards reducing emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) and

nitrogen oxides ( NOX). These

compounds react in the presence of heat

and sunlight to form ozone, which is a

primary ingredient of smog.

D. What Are the Sources of These

Pollutants?

VOCs are emitted from a variety of

sources, including motor vehicles, a

variety of consumer and commercial

products such as paints and solvents,

chemical plants, gasoline stations, and

other industrial sources. NOX is emitted

from motor vehicles, power plants, and

other sources that burn fossil fuels.

E. What Harmful Effects Can These

Pollutants Produce?

VOCs and NOX react in the

atmosphere to form ozone, the prime

ingredient of smog in our cities and

many rural areas of the country. Though

ozone occurs naturally high in our

atmosphere, at ground level it is the

prime ingredient of smog. When

inhaled, even at very low levels, ozone

can:

Cause acute respiratory problems;

Aggravate asthma;

Cause significant temporary decreases

in lung capacity in some healthy

adults;

Cause inflammation of lung tissue;

Lead to hospital admissions and

emergency room visits; and

Impair the body’s immune system

defenses.

F. Should I Be Concerned If I Live Near

an Industry That Emits a Significant

Amount of These Pollutants?

Industrial facilities that emit large

amounts of these pollutants are

monitored by the State’s environmental

agency, the Department of

Environmental Management (RI-DEM).

Many facilities are required to emit air

pollutants through stacks to ensure that

high concentrations of pollutants do not

exist at ground level. Permits issued to

these facilities include information on

which pollutants are being released,

how much may be released, and what

steps the source’s owner or operator is

taking to reduce pollution. The RI-DEM

makes permit applications and permits

readily available to the public for

review. You can contact the RI-DEM for

more information about air pollution

emitted by industrial facilities in your

neighborhood.

G. To What Degree Does Rhode Island’s

Plan Reduce Emissions?

By 1999, Rhode Island’s plan will

reduce VOC emissions by 29 percent

and NOX emissions by 17 percent

compared to 1990 emission levels. This

reduction is attributable to the control

strategy outlined in the State’s post1996 plan, and in Rhode Island’s ROP

plan for the years 1990 to 1996 that

achieved a 15 percent reduction in VOC

emissions. The reduction is also partly

attributable to the Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). Not

all emission reductions from the

FMVCP program are creditable towards

ROP emission reductions, and RI-DEM’s

ROP plan accurately accounts for this.

EPA approved the Rhode Island 15

percent ROP plan on December 8, 1998

(63 FR 67594).

Rhode Island used the appropriate

EPA guidance to calculate the 1999 VOC

and NOX emission target levels, and the

amount of reductions needed to achieve

its emission target levels.

Table 1 illustrates the steps used by

Rhode Island to derive its 1999 emission

target levels for VOC and NOX. The ROP

plan indicates that 1999 projected,

controlled emissions are below the

target levels for the Providence serious

nonattainment area.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30813

TABLE 1

[units = tons per summer day (tpsd)]

Description Pollutant—VOC Pollutant—NOX

Step 1: 1990 Inventory ..................................................... 258 ............................................................ 101.0

Step 2: ROP Inventory (biogenics subtracted) ................. 185.1 ......................................................... 101.0

Step 3: Adjusted inventory: removal of non-creditable reductions 1 and non-reactive VOCs.¥16.0 (FMVCP) ....................................... ¥9.6 (FMVCP)

¥2.6 (non-reactives) ................................

Net: 166.5 ................................................. Net: 91.4

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (State will use both

VOC and NOX rdxns. to meet post-1996 ROP, as

shown) 2.

2.5% .......................................................... 6.5%

4.2 ............................................................. 5.9

Step 5: Calculate Total Expected Reductions 3 ................ 4.2 ............................................................. 9.6 + 5.9 = 15.5

Step 6: Set Target Level for 1999 4 .................................. 137.3 ......................................................... 85.5

Step 7: Project Emissions to 1999 ................................... 173.3 ......................................................... 98.8

Step 8: Projected, Controlled Emissions for 1999 ........... 130.1 ......................................................... 83.7

1States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emission standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline promulgated

prior to 1990. 2These reduction percentages were revised pursuant to a letter sent to EPA from the RI–DEM dated 4/02/01. This revision subsequently

changes the emission targets shown in step 6. 3 Rhode Island accounted for the full 9 years of FMVCP reductions in deriving its 1996 VOC target, so no additional FMVCP reductions need

to be subtracted in development of the post-1999 ROP target. 4For NOX, target level = Step 2 ¥ Step 5. For VOC, target level = 1996 target of 141.5 ¥ Step 5.

Rhode Island projected its base year

emissions to 1999 using growth factors

from a variety of sources, including the

U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau

of Economic Analysis, and Bureau of

Census data to derive population based

growth factors.

H. How Will Rhode Island Achieve

These Emission Reductions?

Rhode Island’s post-1996 control

strategy matches the control strategy

described in the EPA’s December 8,

1998 approval of the State’s 15 percent

plan, and also includes additional

emission reductions from regulations

limiting NOX emissions from stationary

point sources, VOC and NOX emission

reductions from federal measures

limiting emissions from non-road

engines promulgated between 1996 and

1999, and VOC and NOX reductions

from the on-road mobile sector

attributable to the State’s Low Emission

Vehicle program. These additional

control programs are further described

below.

Rhode Island’s post-1996 plan also

reflects credit from the State’s enhanced

automobile inspection and maintenance

(I&M) program, which was supposed to

start by mid-1999. The post-1996 plan

estimated that 2.2 tpsd in VOC emission

reduction credit and 1.8 tpsd in NOX

emission reduction credit were expected

to accrue by the end of 1999 from this

program. However, Rhode Island did

not actually begin its program until

January of 2000, so emission reductions

from this program did not occur in the

1996 to 1999 time-frame. This does not

create a shortfall in the State’s post-1996

ROP plan because Rhode Island’s plan

contained enough surplus emission

reductions to cover its emission

reduction obligation after subtraction of

the I/M reductions.

NOX RACT

Rhode Island has adopted a NOX

RACT regulation, the citation for which

is Air Pollution Control regulation No.

27, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide

Emissions.’’ Facilities covered by the

rule needed to comply by May 31, 1995.

Rhode Island submitted the rule to EPA

as a revision to the State’s SIP, and EPA

approved it via a direct final rulemaking

published on September 2, 1997 (62 FR

46202). Rhode Island determined, and

EPA agrees, that this program will

reduce NOX emissions in the State by

6.55 tons per summer day (tpsd) by

1999.

Federal Non-Road Standards

In the June 17, 1994 Federal Register

(59 FR 31306), EPA established a

regulation setting final emission

standards for new heavy duty

compression ignition (diesel) engines.

These rules adopt NOX and smoke

standards for large (>50 HP) non-road

diesel engines. Additionally, in the July

3, 1995 Federal Register (60 FR 34581),

EPA promulgated the first phase of the

regulations to control emissions from

new non-road spark-ignition engines.

The regulation is found at 40 CFR part

90, and is titled, ‘‘Control of Emissions

From Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines.’’

Rhode Island correctly applied guidance

contained in a November 28, 1994 EPA

memorandum pertaining to the federal

non-road engine control program to

determine the VOC and NOX emission

reductions that will occur in the State.

The sale of reformulated gasoline in

Rhode Island also reduces VOC nonroad emissions in the State. The

combined effect of reformulated

gasoline and the new non-road

standards will lower VOC emissions by

4.0 tpsd in the State, and lower NOX

emissions by 1.3 tpsd.

Rhode Island National Low Emission

Vehicle Program

Rhode Island submitted a National

Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program

to EPA as a revision to the State’s SIP,

and EPA approved the program via a

direct final rule published in the

Federal Register on March 9, 2000 (65

FR 12476). The NLEV program allows

auto manufacturers to commit to meet

tailpipe standards for cars and lightduty trucks that are more stringent than

EPA can mandate. The program will

reduce VOC emissions by 0.08 tpsd, and

NOX emissions by 0.12 tpsd.

The Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan

demonstrates that the VOC and NOX

emission reductions from the control

strategy will achieve sufficient emission

reductions to lower 1999 emission

levels below the target levels calculated

for each pollutant.

I. Have These Emission Reductions

Improved Air Quality in Rhode Island?

Ozone levels have decreased in Rhode

Island during the 1990’s, due in part to

emission reductions achieved by the

State’s plans. Pollution control

measures implemented by States

30814 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

upwind of Rhode Island have also

helped ozone levels decline in the State.

J. Has Rhode Island Met its

Contingency Measure Obligation?

Ozone nonattainment areas classified

as serious or above must submit to the

EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and

182(c)(9) of the Act, contingency

measures to be implemented if an area

misses an ozone SIP milestone or does

not attain the national ambient air

quality standard by the applicable date.

Table 1 indicates that Rhode Island’s

post-1996 ROP plan achieves surplus

emission reductions. The State’s post1996 ROP plan does not address

contingency measures. However, on

April 2, 2001, the Rhode Island DEM

submitted a letter to EPA indicating the

State’s intention that surplus emission

reductions achieved by the measures in

the ROP plan be used to cover the

State’s contingency measure obligation.

This request resulted in a change to the

VOC and NOX emission reduction

percentages; the revised percentages are

shown in Table 1.

Table 1 indicates a VOC surplus of 7.2

tpsd and a NOX surplus of 1.8 tpsd.

However, as noted in the I&M program

discussion in this document, Rhode

Island did not begin its I&M program

until January 1, 2000. Table 2 illustrates

how the surplus emission reductions,

adjusted to subtract reductions from the

I/M program, can cover the 3%

contingency obligation.

TABLE 2

[units = tpsd]

Calculation Step

Providence Area

VOC NOX

Step 1: Adjusted 1990 Emissions (from Table 1) ........................................................................................................... 166.5 91.4

Step 2: 1999 Target Levels (from Table 1) ..................................................................................................................... 137.3 85.5

Step 3: Controlled 1999 Emissions (from Table 1) ......................................................................................................... 130.1 83.7

Step 4: Contingency Obligation (3% of Adjusted inventory) ........................................................................................... 5.0 0

Step 5: Revised Controlled 1999 Emissions (add 2.2 tpsd VOC and 1.8 tpsd NOX to the controlled 1999 emissions

shown in Table 1 to account for delayed implementation of I&M) .............................................................................. 132.3 85.5

Step 6: Final Surplus after Contingency (Step 5–Step 4) ............................................................................................... 0 0

As can be seen from the above table,

the surplus VOC emission reduction

would cover the area’s 3% contingency

obligation, leaving no additional

reductions to spare. Therefore, EPA

concludes that the Rhode Island post1996 ROP plan adequately demonstrates

that the required 9% post-1996 ROP and

3% contingency reductions have been

achieved.

K. Are Conformity Budgets Contained

in the Plan?

Section 176(c) of the Act, and 40 CFR

51.452(b) of the Federal transportation

conformity rule require states to

establish motor vehicle emissions

budgets in any control strategy SIP that

is submitted for attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. Rhode

Island will use such budgets to

determine whether proposed projects

that attract traffic will ‘‘conform’’ to the

emissions assumptions in the SIP.

The Rhode Island post-1996 rate of

progress plan contained 1999 on-road

motor vehicle emission budgets for

VOCs and for NOX for the Providence

serious nonattainment area. The 1999

VOC budget stated in the plan is 41.57

tpsd, and the NOX budget is 46.40 tpsd.

Rhode Island used the EPA’s MOBILE

5b emission factor model to determine

these budgets. These budgets should be

used for making transportation

conformity determinations in the State.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the Rhode Island

post-1996 rate-of-progress emission

reduction plan as a revision to the

State’s SIP.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective August

7, 2001 without further notice unless

the Agency receives relevant adverse

comments by July 9, 2001.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on August 7, 2001 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

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.

III. 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30815

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 August 7, 2001.

Interested parties should comment in

response to the proposed rule rather

than petition for judicial review, unless

the objection arises after the comment

period allowed for in the proposal.

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,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Ira W. Leighton,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA–New

England.

40 CFR part 52 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. Section 52.2088 is added to subpart

OO to read as follows:

§ 52.2088 Control strategy: Ozone.

Revisions to the State Implementation

Plan submitted by the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental

Management on September 21, 1998.

These revisions are for the purpose of

satisfying the rate of progress

requirement of section 182(c)(2)(B), and

the contingency measure requirements

of section 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act,

for the Providence serious ozone

nonattainment area.

[FR Doc. 01–13941 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 095–0237a; FRL–6987–3]

Revisions to the Arizona and California

State Implementation Plans, Maricopa

County Environmental Services

Department, Placer County Air

Pollution Control District and South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department (MCESD) portion

of the Arizona State Implementation

Plan (SIP), and the Placer County Air

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) portions of the

California SIP. These revisions concern

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from Pharmaceutical,

Cosmetic and Vitamin Manufacturing

Operations, Fiberboard Manufacturing,

and Hydrogen Plant Process Vents. We

are approving local rules that regulate

these emission sources under the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August

7, 2001, without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comments by July

9, 2001. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department, 1001 N. Central

Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, Arizona,

85004–1942.