42290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under E.O.

13045, Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)g, of Commandant

Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

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. 1225 and 1231; 50

U.S.C. 191; and 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1,

6.04–6, and 1605; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new § 165.T08–029 is added to

read as follows:

§ 165.T08–029 Safety Zone: Arkansas

River Mile 290 to 293.

(a) Location. The following area is a

safety zone: the waters of the Arkansas

River between miles 290.0 and 293.0.

The zone is needed because of a bridge

exercise being held by the United States

Army.

(b) Effective date. This section is

effective on July 25, 2000, from 8 a.m.

(CST) until 4 p.m. (CST) unless sooner

terminated by the Captain of the Port.

(c) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in § 165.23 of

this part, entry into this zone is

prohibited unless authorized by the

Captain of the Port Memphis.

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Michael S. Gardiner,

Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard,

Acting Captain of the Port.

[FR Doc. 00–17366 Filed 7–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI–042–01–6990a; A–1–FRL–6727–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and

Vermont; Aerospace Negative

Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

negative declarations submitted by the

States of New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

and Vermont for aerospace coating

operations. This action is being taken in

accordance with the Clean Air Act

(CAA).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 8, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 9, 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, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

New 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

Ecosystem Protection, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

New England, One Congress Street, 11th

floor, Boston, MA, 02114–2023. Copies

of New Hampshire’s submittal are also

available at Air Resources Division,

Department of Environmental Services,

6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord,

NH 03302–0095. Copies of Rhode

Island’s submittal are also available at

Office of Air Resources, Department of

Environmental Management, 235

Promenade Street, Providence, RI

02908–5767. Copies of Vermont’s

submittal are also available Air

Pollution Control Division, Agency of

Natural Resources, Building 3 South,

103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT

05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne E. Arnold, (617) 918–1047.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section is organized as follows:

What action is EPA taking?

What are the relevant CAA requirements?

What is a control techniques guideline

(CTG)?

What is the aerospace CTG?

How have New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

and Vermont addressed the CAA

requirements for aerospace coating

operations?

What is EPA’s response to the states’

submittals?

What Action Is EPA Taking?

EPA is approving negative

declarations for aerospace coating

operations submitted by New

Hampshire on September 11, 1998, by

Rhode Island on March 28, 2000, and by

Vermont on July 28, 1998. EPA is also

correcting Table (e) in 40 CFR 52.2070

to include Rhode Island’s negative

declaration for the synthetic organic

chemical manufacturing industry

(SOCMI) distillation and reactor

processes control techniques guideline

categories. EPA approved the SOCMI

distillation and reactor processes

negative declaration for Rhode Island on

December 2, 1999 (64 FR 67495) but

neglected to add the appropriate entry

to Table (e) at that time.

What Are the Relevant CAA

Requirements?

Sections 182(b)(2) and 184(b) of the

Clean Air Act contain the requirements

relevant to today’s action. Section

182(b)(2) requires States to adopt RACT

rules for all areas designated

nonattainment for ozone and classified

as moderate or above. There are three

parts to the section 182(b)(2) RACT

requirement: (1) RACT for sources

covered by an existing Control

Techniques Guideline (CTG)—i.e., a

CTG issued prior to the enactment of the

1990 amendments to the CAA; (2) RACT

for sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) all major sources not

covered by a CTG, i.e., non-CTG

sources.

Pursuant to the CAA Amendments of

1990, all of Rhode Island and portions

of New Hampshire were classified as

serious nonattainment for ozone. 56 FR

56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). These areas were,

thus, subject to the section 182(b)(2)

RACT requirement.

In addition, the States of New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont

are located in the Northeast Ozone

Transport Region (OTR). These states

are, therefore, subject to section 184(b)

of the amended CAA. Section 184(b)

requires that RACT be implemented in

the entire state for all VOC sources

covered by a CTG issued before or after

the enactment of the CAA Amendments

of 1990 and for all major VOC sources

(defined as 50 tons per year for sources

in the OTR).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 42291

What Is a Control Techniques

Guideline (CTG)?

A CTG is a document issued by EPA

which establishes a ‘‘presumptive

norm’’ for RACT for a specific VOC

source category. Under the pre-amended

CAA, EPA issued CTG documents for 29

categories of VOC sources. Section 183

of the amended CAA requires that EPA

issue 13 new CTGs. Appendix E of the

General Preamble of Title I (57 FR

18077) lists the categories for which

EPA plans to issue new CTGs.

What Is the Aerospace CTG?

EPA issued a CTG for aerospace

coating operations on March 27, 1998

(63 FR 15006). This CTG applies to

aerospace coating operations with the

potential to emit 25 tons of VOC or more

per year.

How Have New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Vermont Addressed the

CAA Requirements for Aerospace

Coating Operations?

In response to the CAA requirement

to adopt RACT for all sources covered

by a new CTG, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Vermont submitted negative

declarations to EPA for the aerospace

coating operations CTG category.

Through the negative declaration, New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont

are asserting that there are no sources

within their respective states that would

be subject to a rule for aerospace coating

operations.

What Is EPA’s Response to the States’

Submittals?

EPA is approving these negative

declaration submittals as meeting the

CAA section 182(b)(2) and section

184(b) requirements, as applicable, for

this source category. However, if

evidence is submitted by August 9, 2000

that there are existing sources within

the States of New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, or Vermont that, for purposes of

meeting the RACT requirements, would

be subject to a rule for aerospace coating

operations, if developed, such

comments would be considered adverse

and EPA would withdraw its approval

action on that State’s negative

declaration.

The EPA is publishing this rule

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 adverse comments be filed. This

action will be effective September 8,

2000 without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

August 9, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

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.

Parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time. If no such comments

are received, the public is advised that

this rule will be effective on September

8, 2000 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

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.

Final Action

EPA is approving negative

declarations submitted by New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont

for aerospace coating operations. EPA is

also correcting Table (e) in 40 CFR

52.2070 to include Rhode Island’s

negative declaration for the SOCMI

distillation and reactor processes CTG

categories.

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.

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

42292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 132 / Monday, July 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 8, 2000. 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, Ozone.

Dated: June 12, 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 et seq.

Subpart EE—New Hampshire

2. Section 52.1520 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(67) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1520 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(67) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

New Hampshire Air Resources Division

on September 11, 1998.

(i) Additional materials.

(A) Letter from the New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

dated September 11, 1998 stating a

negative declaration for the aerospace

coating operations Control Techniques

Guideline category.

Subpart OO—Rhode Island

3. Section 52.2070 is amended as

follows:

In paragraph (e), the table is amended

by adding at the end of the table new

citations for two negative declarations to

read as follows:

§ 52.2070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(e) Non Regulatory.

RHODE ISLAND NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP provision

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area

State submittal date/effective date EPA approved date Explanations

*******

Negative Declaration for Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

Distillation and Reactor Processes Control

Techniques Guideline Categories.

Statewide .............. Submitted 4/5/95 ......... 12/2/99, 64 FR 67495 ......

Negative Declaration for Aerospace Coating

Operations Control Techniques Guideline

Category.

Statewide .............. Submitted 3/28/00 ....... July 10, 2000 [Insert FR

citation from published

date].

Subpart UU—Vermont

4. Section 52.2370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(26) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(26) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Vermont Air Pollution Control Division

on July 28, 1998.

(i) Additional materials.

(A) Letter from the Vermont Air

Pollution Control Division dated July

28, 1998 stating a negative declaration

for the aerospace coating operations

Control Techniques Guideline category.

[FR Doc. 00–16626 Filed 7–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 261, and 270

[FRL–6720–9]

RIN 2050–AE01

NESHAPS: Final Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Hazardous Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

SUMMARY: On September 30, 1999 the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published the Hazardous Waste

Combustors NESHAP Final Rule. On

November 19, 1999 EPA published the

first technical correction of that rule to

address a time sensitive situation.

Today’s rule corrects numerous

typographical errors and clarifies

several issues from the September 30,

1999 rule, one issue from a closelyrelated June 19, 1998 rule, and makes

one adjustment to the November 19,

1999 technical correction. These

corrections and clarifications will make

the NESHAP final rule easier to

understand and implement.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 10,

2000.

ADDRESSES: The public may obtain a

copy of this technical correction at the

RCRA Information Center (RIC), located

at Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington,

Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline at (800) 424–9346 (toll free) or

(703) 412–9812 in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area. For information on

this rule contact David Hockey (5302W),

Office of Solid Waste, Ariel Rios