41344 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Regulation

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 49

CFR 1.46.

2. Add temporary § 165.T01–160 to

read as follows:

§ 165.T01–160 Safety Zone: Hudson Valley

Triathlon, Hudson River, Ulster Landing,

NY.

(a) Location. The following area is a

safety zone: All waters of the Hudson

River, in the vicinity of Ulster Landing,

bound by the following points:

41°59′52.5′′ N 073°56′34.2′′ W (about

150 yards south of Hudson River

Lighted Buoy 82 (LLNR 38325)), thence

to 42°00′15.1′′ N 073°56′25.2′′ W, thence

to 42°00′05.4′′ N 073°56′41.9′′ W, thence

to 42°00′03.7′′ N 073°56′43.1′′ W, (NAD

1983), thence back to the point of

beginning, in the northern end of

Barrytown Reach.

(b) Effective period. This section is

effective from 6:30 a.m. (e.s.t.) until 8:30

a.m. (e.s.t.) on July 9, 2000. There is no

rain date for this event.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on-scene-patrol personnel.

These personnel comprise

commissioned, warrant, and petty

officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being

hailed by a U. S. Coast Guard vessel by

siren, radio, flashing light, or other

means, the operator of a vessel shall

proceed as directed.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

R.E. Bennis,

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 00–16889 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–IS–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA077–7210a; A–1–FRL–6709–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; VOC Regulation for

Large Commercial Bakeries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. This revision establishes

and requires large commercial bakeries

to meet VOC Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT)

requirements. The intended effect of

this action is to approve a revision to

Massachusetts SIP which reduces VOC

emissions from bakeries. This action is

being taken in accordance with the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 5, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 4, 2000. If adverse

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, Manager, Air Quality

Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystems

Protection, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region I, JFK

Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours, by appointment at the Office of

Ecosystems Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA; and the Division of

Air Quality Control, Department of

Environmental Protection, One Winter

Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeanne Cosgrove, (617) 918–1669.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean

Air Act (CAA) establishes requirements

for State Implementation Plans for areas

that have not attained the national

ambient air quality standards for ozone.

Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA expands

the applicability of RACT to sources of

VOC equal to or greater than 50 tons per

year. To help the states identify VOC

control options, the CAA required EPA

to publish alternative control

technology (ACT) documents for a

variety of VOC sources. EPA published

an ACT document for Bakery Oven

Emissions (EPA 453/R–92–017) in

December, 1992. Massachusetts has

identified several large commercial

bakeries that are greater than 50 ton per

year sources and as such are subject to

RACT. Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR

7.18(29), Bakeries to reduce VOC

emissions from bakeries.

On March 29, 1995, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

submitted a formal revision to its SIP.

The SIP revision amends 310 CMR 7.00

by adding Section 310 CMR 7.18(29),

Bakeries.

I. Summary of SIP Revision

The adopted air pollution control

regulation, 310 CMR 7.18(29) Bakeries,

establishes RACT for bakery facilities.

The rule applies to any person who

owns, leases, operates or controls any

bakery which has the potential to emit,

before the application of air pollution

control equipment, equal to or greater

than 50 tons per year of VOC. The rule

establishes as RACT that affected

bakeries reduce VOC emissions from

baking ovens by 81% by weight. The

81% overall reduction requirement is

based on a minimum capture efficiency

of 90% combined with a minimum

destruction efficiency of 90%.

According to the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental

Protection, affected bakeries in the

Commonwealth will be installing

catalytic oxidation to achieve RACT

level VOC reductions. Massachusetts’

rule contains the following additional

provisions:

1. Exemption for small bakeries: This

section exempts bakeries that can

demonstrate that, since January 1, 1990,

the bakery has not emitted, before the

application of air pollution control

equipment, greater than or equal to 50

tons per year of VOC. Small bakeries

must obtain a permit restriction which

restricts potential emissions to below 50

tons per year;

2. Exemptions for small ovens: This

section exempts individual baking

ovens (at an applicable facility) which

have not emitted since January 1, 1990,

before application of air pollution

control equipment, greater than 25 tons

of VOC in any calendar year from the

RACT requirement and plan submittal

requirements. (small ovens must still

comply with the recordkeeping and

testing requirements);

3. Plan submittal requirements: This

section requires bakeries to submit an

emission control plan to the

Massachusetts DEP for approval (note

that the emission limit requirement in

310 CMR 7.18(29)(e) is directly

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41345

enforceable under the SIP whether or

not a bakery has submitted a plan.);

4. Recordkeeping requirements: This

section requires bakeries to maintain

records necessary to demonstrate

compliance for at least five years,

including: monthly records to determine

emissions from each oven, and hourly

(or continuous ) records of control

equipment operating parameters such as

temperature, pressure drop, or other

parameters to assure continuous

compliance; and

5. Testing Requirements: This section

requires bakeries to perform tests to

demonstrate compliance upon request

of the Massachusetts DEP.

Facilities are required to comply with

RACT by May 31, 1995.

EPA’s evaluation is detailed in a

memorandum, entitled ‘‘Technical

Support Document for Massachusetts

Air Pollution Control Regulation, 310

CMR 7.18(29), Bakeries.’’ EPA considers

the Massachusetts bakery regulation to

represent a reasonable level of control

for all affected facilities. In approvals

granted by Massachusetts DEP of

emission control plans submitted by

individual bakeries, Massachusetts DEP

evaluates the feasibility of higher

reduction rates (e.g. 95% minimum

oxidizer destruction efficiency) and

imposes those if determined to be

feasible.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving Section 310 CMR

7.18(29), Bakeries. 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 a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, the EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This action will be effective

September 5, 2000, unless by August 4,

2000, relevant adverse comments are

received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective September 5, 2000.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the State implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

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

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 5,

2000. 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).) EPA encourages interested

parties to comment on the proposed rule

rather than file a petition for review in

the Court of Appeals.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

41346 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Massachusetts was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q

Subpart W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(110) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on March 29,

1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated March 29, 1995 submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(B) The following portions of the

Rules Governing the Control of Air

Pollution for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts effective on January 27,

1995: 310 Code of Massachusetts

Regulations Section 7.18(29), Bakeries.

3. In § 52.1167 Table 52.1167 is

amended by adding the following new

state citation: 310 CMR 7.18(29),

Bakeries.

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts

State regulations.

TABLE 52.1167.—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS.

State citation Title/subject

Date submitted by

State

Date approved

by EPA

Federal Register

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections

*******

310 CMR 7.18(29) Bakeries ............. 03/29/95 July 5, 2000 ....... [Insert FR citation from published date].110 Reasonably Available Control

Technology Requirement

(RACT) for bakeries.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–15909 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR 82–7297a; FRL 6714–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or we) approves the

following revisions to the Oregon State

Implementation Plan (SIP): the repeal of

Oregon’s Consumer Products Rules, the

repeal of the Architectural Coatings

Rules, the revision and partial repeal of

the Motor Vehicle Refinishings Rules,

and definition revisions. The Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) forwarded this submittal to EPA

for inclusion in the Oregon SIP on June

18, 1999. These revisions were

submitted for the purposes of complying

with section 110 and part D of the Clean

Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 5, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 4, 2000. If adverse

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: Written comments should

be addressed to: Debra Suzuki, EPA,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of material submitted to EPA and

other information supporting this action

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101 and Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality,

811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97204–1390.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Suzuki, EPA, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553–

0985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

A. Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules

1. What revisions to the Oregon SIP are we

approving?

2. What Are Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules?

3. What is Ozone?

4. Why are Consumer and Commercial

Products regulated?

5. Why are we repealing Oregon’s Consumer

and Commercial Products Rules from the

SIP now?

6. What are the differences between EPA’s

and Oregon’s rules?

a. General

b. Consumer Products (OAR 340–022–0800

through OAR 340–022–0860)

c. Architectural Coatings (OAR 340–022–

1000 through OAR 340–022–1050)

d. Aerosol Spray Paint (OAR 340–022–0900

through OAR 340–022–0950)

e. Automobile Refinishing Coatings (OAR

340–022–0700 through OAR 340–022–

0760)

7. How will these differences affect VOC

emissions in Portland?

B. VOC Definitions

1. What revisions to the Oregon SIP are we

approving?

2. Why are the VOC Definitions changing?

Summary of Action

Administrative Requirements

A. Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules

1. What Revisions to the Oregon SIP Are

We Approving?

We are approving the repeal of

Oregon’s Consumer Products Rules, the

repeal of the Architectural Coatings

Rules, and a revision and partial repeal

of the Motor Vehicle Refinishings Rules.

2. What Are Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules?

Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules reduce Volatile Organic