5172 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[CGD 13–06–002] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone: North Portland Harbor 

Dredging Operations; Portland, OR 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction 

of effective date. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to effective date of the 

temporary final rule establishing a 

temporary safety zone on the Columbia 

River, in the vicinity of Hayden Island 

at North Portland Harbor (CGD–13–06–

002) published on January 25, 2006, in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 4043). 

DATES: This correction is effective 

February 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket [CGD13–06–

002] and are available for inspection or 

copying at U. S. Coast Guard Sector 

Portland, 6767 North Basin Ave. 

Portland, Oregon 97217 between 7 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Petty Officer Charity Keuter, c/o Captain 

of the Port Portland, 6767 N. Basin Ave. 

Portland, Oregon 97217 at 503–240–

9301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 25, 2006, the Coast Guard 

published temporary final rule 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the Columbia River, in the vicinity of 

Hayden Island at North Portland Harbor 

(CGD–13–06–002) in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 4043). In that document 

the effective date inadvertently stated 

the year as 2005. 

In rule FR Doc. 06–677 published on 

January 25, 2006, (71 FR 4043) make the 

following correction. On page 4043, in 

the first column, change the effective 

date to read as follows: 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

January 17, 2006 8 a.m. (PST) through 

March 15, 2006 at 5 p.m. (PST). 

Dated: January 25, 2006. 

Stefan G. Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, United States Coast 

Guard. 

[FR Doc. 06–906 Filed 1–31–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–0557a; FRL–8025–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District, YoloSolano 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 

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 email 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). 


erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 5173 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

VCAPCD ......................................................... 74.14 Polyester Resin Material Operations ............. 04/12/05 07/15/05 

YSAQMD ......................................................... 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 


erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES
5174 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 1, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–0557c; FRL–8024–9] 

Interim Final Determination to Stay 

and/or Defer Sanctions, Yolo-Solano 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to stay sanctions 

based on a proposed approval of 

revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

The revisions concern Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District Rule 2.21, 

Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer. 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on February 1, 2006. 

However, comments will be accepted 

until March 3, 2006. 

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 email directly to EPA, your e-mail 


erjones on PROD1PC61 with RULES