Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557a; FRL-8025-2]
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Direct final rule.
 SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin material use operations and organic liquid chemical storage and transfer operations. 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 April 3, 2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 3, 2006. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.
 ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET NUMBER], by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
                        *http://www.regulations.gov*. Follow the on-line instructions. 2. E-mail: 
                        *steckel.andrew@epa.gov*. 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:*
                         All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
                        *http://www.regulations.gov*, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 
                        *http://www.regulations.gov*
                         or e-mail. 
                        *http://www.regulations.gov*
                         is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:*
                         The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at 
                        *http://www.regulations.gov*
                         and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the 
                        **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**
                         section.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947-4111, or 
                        *wamsley.jerry@epa.gov*.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules. D. Public comment and final action. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
                    ( print page 5173) Table 1.—Submitted Rules
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted
SubmittedVCAPCD
74.14
Polyester Resin Material Operations
04/12/05
07/15/05YSAQMD
2.21
Organic Liquid Storage & Transfer
09/14/05
10/20/05
 On August 18, 2005 and November 22, 2005, respectively, EPA found that VCAPCD Rule 74.14 and YSAQMD Rule 2.21 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state's submittal must meet these criteria before EPA's formal review can begin. B. Are there other versions of these rules? We approved previous versions of both rules into the SIP. VCAPCD Rule 74.14 was approved and incorporated into the SIP on July 25, 1996 (see 61 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (FR) 38571). We gave a limited approval and limited disapproval to YSAQMD Rule 2.21 when incorporating it into the SIP on January 22, 2004 (see 69 FR 3012). There have been no intervening submittals of these rules since we acted on these prior versions. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. VCAPCD Rule 74.14 sets emission, formulation, work practice requirements for operations using polyester resins to fabricate, rework, repair or touch-up products for commercial, industrial, or military use. YSAQMD Rule 2.21 sets vapor pressure containment and control requirements for operations that store and transfer organic liquid chemicals. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about these rules. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Both VCAPCD and YSAQMD regulate a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so each rule must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following: 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987; 2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook); 3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook); 4. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-78-047, USEPA, December 1978; 5. “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,” EPA-450/2-77-036, USEPA, December 1977; and, 6. “Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,” EPA-450/2-78-051, USEPA, December 1978. B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. On January 22, 2004, we gave YSAQMD Rule 2.21 a limited approval and limited disapproval because it violated EPA's excess emissions policy and contained elements of executive officer's discretion, an enforceability issue. The present submittal corrected these deficiencies by incorporating new provisions consistent with EPA's excess emissions policy during preventative maintenance activities and by deleting the provisions of the rule allowing executive officer discretion. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation of each rule. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules The TSD for VCAPCD 74.14 and YSAQMD Rule 2.21 describe rule revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local agencies modify the rule. D. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this 
                    **Federal Register**
                    , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by March 3, 2006, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on April 3, 2006. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. 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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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 pre-existing 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 
                    ( print page 5174)
                    significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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). This action 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 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Given this role, absent a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submittal for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submittal, 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. 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 April 3, 2006. 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
Incorporation by reference
Intergovernmental relations
Ozone
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Volatile organic compounds
 Dated: December 22, 2005. Jane Diamond, Acting for Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 Part 52, 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 F—California
 2.Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(337)(i)(B) and (c)(342) to read as follows: § 52.220
  
 (c) * * * (337) * * * (i) * * * (B) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. (
                            *1*) Rule 74.14, adopted on November 24, 1987 and revised on April 12, 2005. 
 (c) * * * (342) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on October 20, 2005, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. (
                            *1*) Rule 2.21, adopted on March 23, 1994 and revised on September 14, 2005.


[FR Doc. 06-894 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P